Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Concorde

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a further statement about the introduction of Concorde into airline service with British Airways.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I currently expect British Airways to start commercial services with Concorde at the beginning of 1976 simultaneously with Air France.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister say whether he is negotiating supersonic overflying rights in the Middle East in regard to opening a service to Bahrain and whether he has such rights in the case of India and Indonesia to enable the aeroplane to fly to the Far East? Will he say

also whether the aircraft might be allowed to fly to New York, and a word about fares?

Mr. Davis: Discussions are progressing with all the countries which will be concerned with a view to obtaining the necessary clearances for overflying and the other matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I do not think it would be helpful, in view of the fact that the discussions are progressing, if I were to add to that at this stage.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the question of rights to fly supersonic aircraft on various routes has arisen in any way during discussion of the new policy guidelines for civil aviation?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the Questions which my right hon. Friend will be answering on the matter of the policy review. Therefore, he must be patient.

Mr. Biffen: Will the Minister say whether the British Airways Concorde contract contains an escape clause which would apply should operating rights in the United States not be forthcoming?

Mr. Davis: I have no reason to suppose that those operational rights will not be forthcoming. The contractual question that would arise if we were disappointed in that respect would then have to be considered. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to add to that at this stage.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek a meeting with his French Government counterpart in order to ensure a co-ordinated Anglo-French approach to future negotiations concerning Concorde for which his Department is responsible.

Mr. Clinton Davis: There is already very close collaboration with the French Government in negotiations concerning Concorde for which my Department is responsible. Accordingly my right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet his French counterpart to discuss these matters.

Mr. Adley: is the Under-Secretary aware that Concorde has some powerful and unscrupulous enemies, particularly in the United States? Does he agree that recent congressional hearings have shown the lengths to which some American aircraft manufacturers will go to promote and defend the rights of their companies? Does he accept that Britain and France have an overriding economic and political interest in Concorde? On that basis, will he at least assure the House that the support for the project previously manifested by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, which was always self-evident, is still available and as strong from those members of Her Majesty's Government who now have responsibility for Concorde?

Mr. Davis: There is absolutely no reason to question the support of my Department and the Department of Industry, under its present Secretary of State, for this project. Indeed, I made this clear to the hon. Gentleman in a debate which he initiated some little time ago. Moreover, the representations of both the British and French Governments and industries at the hearings in the United States were very strong indeed. I do not think that it would be helpful to engage in name calling against the opponents of the Concorde project. Certainly neither I nor my right hon. Friend intend to follow the hon. Gentleman in that regard.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members think that Concorde will be a gigantic financial disaster? Will he ensure that, in any cuts in public expenditure, education and social services take priority over this huge

pit into which money is being poured so that the manufacturing capacity which is at present devoted to Concorde can be released to something more socially useful?

Mr. Davis: I do not accept the premise upon which my hon. Friend bases his question. I do not regard this remarkable aircraft, which involves great technological advance, as being a disaster. Cuts, of course, are not matters for me.

Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the 2½ million people living within earshot of Heathrow Airport would heave a sigh of relief if they were to hear that the Concorde project had fallen through, because of the appalling noise that it is expected to make? Will he ensure that Concorde is not allowed to fly in and out of Heathrow until he is satisfied that its noise levels are acceptable to the people of London?

Mr. Davis: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have sought to exaggerate the situation concerning noise. He knows perfectly well that it constitutes no greater noise nuisance than the Boeing 707 and various other aircraft. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, as will others, of testing the veracity of that claim when the endurance flying begins in July.

Exports (Non-EEC Countries)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to encourage British manufacturers to increase exports to countries outside the EEC.

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): My Department's export promotion services are being very heavily used by exporters. I am also seeking to assist exporters by ministerial visits to overseas markets and by strengthening the link between Government and industry through the British Overseas Trade Board and its new advisory council. ECGD facilities are also being extended.

Mrs. Short: I am sure that the whole House will congratulate my right hon. Friend on the energy with which he is pursuing his visits abroad to try to help firms to find and follow up markets. Does he not think, however, that as most of the CBI member firms put their


eggs into the Common Market basket, and as the performance of many of the firms in the CBI is pretty poor outside the EEC as well as within it, he ought to have an investigation made of some of these firms, to see how their export departments are organised, how many people they have in the field and how many people are following up the work that he does? Does he not think that this is necessary?

Mr. Shore: I think there is a great deal of useful work to be done in firms themselves as to how they can best deploy their efforts, with particular emphasis on doing better in export markets, and I would certainly encourage firms to do that. One of the advantages of the planning agreement approach that we shall be developing soon will be to enable us to have a more structured discussion with firms about their export effort.
Concerning my hon. Friend's first point, it still remains the case that a very large part—indeed the larger part—of Britain's exports is to the rest of the world and only 35 per cent. goes to the EEC.

Mr. Tim Renton: Does not the Secretary of State's answer to this Question smack of complacency? Is he really following up all the means used by other nations within GATT for increasing exports—for example, the Australian suggestion of double tax relief for money spent on export promotion? Does he agree that it is essential that more resources should be agreed for exports and less absorbed within our public sector?

Mr. Shore: I think I would accept that latter point that more of our resources must go into the balance of payments. That is undoubtedly the case, and that is the major strategy of the present Government. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency at all in the Department of Trade about the requirements of Britain's export drive—none at all. I am very willing indeed to study any relevant experience and practice that other nations have which could be of assistance to our own export effort.

Zambia

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions he has had with the Government of Zambia

regarding trading arrangements between the United Kingdom and Zambia.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): Neither I nor the Secretary of State has had direct contacts with the Zambian Government on trade matters. But there are, of course, constant contacts through our respective High Commissions on commercial matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Brotherton: When the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend next meets the Zambian trade authorities, will he congratulate them on their trade policy in Southern Africa, especially the way that they have continued to trade with Rhodesia and South Africa? Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend impress upon their Cabinet colleagues that it would be to the advantage of this country if we pursued a similar policy, especially in the case of the export of Nimrod aircraft to South Africa?

Mr. Deakins: In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Government's decision about the export of arms to South Africa was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the House just before Christmas. As for the first part of the hon Gentleman's question, neither I nor my right hon. Friend has any plans for an early visit to Zambia, which does not figure as one of our major export markets.

Hosiery

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the value of hosiery exports and of hosiery imports for the latest convenient period for which figures are available.

Mr. Deakins: For the 12 months ended May 1975, exports of hosiery including knitted underwear and outerwear were £83 million and imports £133 million on the usual overseas trade statistics basis.

Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that far too many of my constituents in Leicester who depend on this great industry, which has contributed so much and still contributes a good deal to business, are now working on short time? What is my hon. Friend doing about it, and what assurance can he give the House that the Government are aware of the crisis in this great traditional industry?

Mr. Deakins: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who share the concern of workers in the industry that something can be done to help this great British industry. The Government are taking action. I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the Prime Minister's statement on 23rd May when, among other things, he mentioned the possibilities of anti-dumping applications and said in particular that the Government would continue their powers under the Industry Act to ensure in this world-wide recession in textiles that jobs were not lost.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will my hon. Friend accept that many people in Leicestershire and in my constituency are affected by these cheap imports, and will he recognise also that although the Prime Minister's statement was a portent of things to come in the future, nothing seems to have been done yet? Will my hon. Friend seriously re-examine the possibility of introducing anti-dumping measures and the possibility of import quotas and other action to stem the flow of imports as soon as possible?

Mr. Deakins: Anti-dumping measures can be taken by the Government only on an application from a representative trade association. As for imports, we cannot take the textile industry overall. We have to look at it sector by sector. Taking two of the subjects of this Question—socks and tights—the import penetration in 1974 for socks was about 3 per cent. and for tights it was only about 10 per cent. We have to consider the problems on a central basis. Finally, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as recently as 12th June, met representatives of the textile industry in order to follow up the Prime Minister's statement of 23rd May.

Civil Aviation

Mr. Pattie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he plans to publish the Government review of civil aviation policy; and, if so, what form such publication will take.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now publish the result of his review of the policy

guidelines for the regulation of civil aviation.

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his proposed amendments to the guidelines for civil aviation.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to announce the outcome of the review of commercial civil aviation which has been taking place.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to announce the results of the civil aviation review.

Mr. Shore: The report which has been submitted to me represents the advice of my officials. Meetings will now be arranged with the parties mainly concerned and I intend to make a statement in this House as soon as possible.

Mr. Pattie: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to give the House some idea about when the statement may be made? Will he accept that many right hon. and hon. Members hope that the statement will not be dribbled out in the last few days before we go into recess at the end of next month? Does he agree that the absence of such a statement continues to generate uncertainty in the industry? Perhaps he will take this opportunity to re-emphasise his support for the second force airline.

Mr. Shore: I should regret it very much if parts or the whole of the review dribbled out. That is not my intention. We are studying it carefully, and I am anxious to make a statement as soon as I can. I am very much aware of the hon. Gentleman's points about taking full account of the inevitable uncertainties which exist until Government policy is revealed.

Mr. Tebbit: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to take this opportunity to answer the question which I addressed earlier to the Under-Secretary about the introduction of supersonic flying routes in this review? If the right hon. Gentleman finds himself unable or unwilling to publish the whole report, will he consider publishing the statistical data submitted by the parties on which he will reach his conclusions? Finally, does he


agree that it would be the worst of all worlds if public money were used, either as an investment or by nationalisation, to finance the operations of the second force to compete with the public money already in British Airways?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has asked a series of quite interesting questions. First, I cannot help him very much, for the obvious reason that the report has not yet been published and, like the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), I should not want bits of it to dribble out. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's second suggestion about the statistical data to see whether I can help.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about Government money being put into the second force, as he describes it, and his views on that, I should prefer not to comment beyond making the obvious point that his view on this does not seem to accord with that of many people associated with the second force airline.

Mr. Warren: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I welcome his plans to consult those whom he calls interested parties? I hope that they will be not only us here in Parliament but the passengers who find themselves in Europe having to pay two or three times as much to travel by air as they would if they wished to travel in identical aircraft in the United States. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that these guidelines will look after the passenger and not only the Department?

Mr. Shore: Obviously I cannot guarantee to talk to a representative body of passengers. I am not sure whether such a representative body exists. But I take into account in all my thinking the interests of the passenger as well as the airlines involved.

Mr. McCrindle: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us are interested not only in the survival of British Caledonian Airways but in its future progress? When he considers this matter, will he accept that, if there were to be any question of revocation of the licences already granted to that company to such places as Toronto, Atlanta and Bahrein, that could lead to strangulation, which would only be confirmation of the policy which some of us suspect will be forthcoming from the Secretary of State?

Mr. Shore: That again would be to anticipate, and I am not prepared to do that. One of the central features that we have to consider is the role and future of the second force concept as it emerged some five years ago. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall give very careful thought to that.

Mr. Neubert: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to any conclusions, will he accept that the security guaranteed by public money, world-wide prestige and operational cross-subsidy are inherent advantages of State ownership, and that if conditions of genuinely fair competition are to be assured for a second force airline full account must be taken of this in his review?

Mr. Shore: I shall take account of all relevant factors in seeking to make what I hope will be the correct decision.

Mr. Higgins: Will the review include consideration of the present position whereby an airline can obtain a licence for a route but is then denied designation on that route? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the results of the review will not produce a fait accompli for this House and that we shall have an opportunity to debate the matter before final decisions are reached?

Mr. Shore: I cannot promise a debate before I make the statement. But I should be very anxious for the House to debate the matter on the basis of a statement and wish that to be done. As for the hon. Gentleman's other point about licences and designation, I think that there may be some observations on that matter, although I cannot accept the implication in what he said.

Arab Trade Boycott

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will now make a further statement on his policy toward the Arab trade boycott.

Mr. Deakins: I have nothing to add to the statement of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Arab boycott of Israel which I gave on 5th May in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend.—[Vol. 891, c. 1012–13.]

Mr. Huckfield: I do not wish to be uncharitable to my hon. Friend, because I know his feelings on this matter, but is


he aware that the boycott continues and that the pressure is mounting all the time? When does he feel that either he or his right hon. Friend will be in a position to make a far more detailed statement about the Government's policy, so that it will be quite clear to all concerned that a British Government will not tolerate these impediments to free trade?

Mr. Deakins: It has already been made clear that Her Majesty's Government are opposed to and deplore the Arab boycott. I believe that more is to be gained in this matter by supporting policies and actions aimed at the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict in all its manifestations and also by discussing with firms any boycott problems they face—as my officials do from time to time—than by making statements in the House.

Mr. Greville Janner: In the meantime will my hon. Friend assure as that neither British Leyland nor any concern in which the public have a substantial holding will bow to this deplorable boycott?

Mr. Deakins: The commercial policy of firms, whether or not there is a public stake in them, is primarily a matter for the management concerned. We previously answered a Question about British Leyland and the Arab boycott, and I believe that on that occasion I was able to satisfy my hon. and learned Friend that British Leyland's policies were correct.

European Community Countries

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has for improving the balance of payments position in relation to other members of the EEC.

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to promote exports to the EEC countries.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he has taken to promote exports to the EEC countries.

Mr. Shore: It is primarily for British industry to respond to the opportunities of this large and increasingly tariff-free area. As for all major markets, the full range of my Department's services for exporters are available to them and they

are being used on an extensive and increasing scale.
I have the benefit of the advice of the European Trade Committee of the British Overseas Trade Board in the development of export promotion programmes in these markets.

Mr. Hamilton: Now that the referendum is behind us and there is no point in trying to make political mileage out of the worrying deficits in this area, does my right hon. Friend agree that the National Institute's opinion that the effect of our membership of the EEC on this matter was marginally probably a more correct interpretation of the figures than those adduced by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Shore: I do not wish at present to go over the ground of the causes of our trade deterioration with the EEC. However, I am very glad that my hon. Friend acknowledged that this was indeed a very worrying deficit. I emphasise that it is extremly worrying, and, of course, we shall be doing our utmost about it. Indeed, the problem would have been substantially the same, although not totally the same, if we had had a free trade area. As I have often made plain to the House on previous occasions, the problem of our manufacturing industries' trade with the EEC was one which under either outcome of the referendum would have been a matter for us to concentrate upon and on which to seek to find a major improvement.

Mr. Stanley: Does the Secretary of State agree that neither import controls nor any other form of protectionism will improve the productivity or efficiency of British industry, but rather the reverse? Will he confirm that the Government have firmly set their face against import controls as a means of eliminating our present trading deficit with the EEC countries?

Mr. Shore: I do not believe that import controls are the right way to proceed, and that is the Government's policy. We want to improve trade or change the trade deficit through the encouragement of our own exports. One point which I believe deserves to be stated here, as it was stated on behalf of the Government at the Paris meeting of the OECD, is that the opportunities that we and other countries have of exporting depend very


much upon the kind of policies which are being pursued by major industrial countries. It is very necessary that countries which are in surplus in their balance of payments should not be running restrictive policies in respect of demand management.

Mr. Donald Stewart: On the EEC dimension, why has it been apparently impossible for successive Governments over the years to bring pressure on Denmark, with which we have had a deficit running over many years and which totalled £150 million last year?

Mr. Shore: I do not believe that our trade deficit with Denmark, certainly in the past year, has caused us particular concern. It has been much more even. However the pattern of our trade with Denmark has always been greatly influenced by the fact that we have been Denmark's major agricultural customer.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend give us the export and import figures for the Common Market and compare them with the rest of the world? Do they not show that, although there was all this promise about our membership of the Market, it has to date benefited our partners in Europe more than ourselves?

Mr. Shore: I shall not give the precise figures because that would be to anticipate another Question on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend is quite correct. The magnitude of our deficit with the EEC stands out in sharp contrast to the progress that we have been making in reducing deficits with other areas of the world.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the current account of this country is brought into balance, it will be impossible for this country to borrow net from abroad? Does he view that prospect with equanimity?

Mr. Shore: I do not believe that that is a question that should be directed to a Trade Minister. It would be better directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his latest estimate of the balance of trade for the current year between the United Kingdom and the eight members of the EEC.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his latest estimate of the balance of trade in the current year between the United Kingdom and the rest of the EEC.

Mr. Shore: In the first five months of this year our crude balance of trade with the EEC, on an overseas trade statistic basis, was in deficit by £938 million. While I cannot forecast the outturn for 1975, the annual rate based on the first five months would produce a deficit of £2,250 million.

Mr. Gow: Does the Secretary of State envisage a substantial improvement in the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and other members of the Community over the next five years? Will he confirm that the question of import controls is no part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and neither would it accord with the policy of the EEC?

Mr. Shore: I have already dealt with import controls on an earlier Question. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that import controls are extremely difficult within the context of the EEC Treaty. As for his other question, I cannot anticipate the future course of Britain's trade with the EEC. As far as I am concerned, the present situation is very unsatisfactory. British firms must make an all-out effort to improve their trade balance with the EEC.

Mr. Heffer: Despite the difficulties relating to the EEC Treaty, is it not quite clear that the time has come for the Government to negotiate a system of selective import controls with the EEC countries? This is preferable to a growing level of unemployment in industries which are badly affected by the present situation regarding imports. Is it not clear that the Government will have to think again about this matter, whether they like it or not, despite the vote which took place on the Common Market?

Mr. Shore: I thought that the earlier questions dealt with import controls across the board, and what I said previously applies. In view of what my hon. Friend has said about selective import controls, I should point out that there is provision, both within the Treaty of Accession and, indeed, under GATT, for certain uses of import controls relating to particular market disturbances and


regional problems. We are prepared to consider particular cases on their merits.

Mr. Rost: Now that the referendum is over, will the Minister admit that the trade gap with Europe will not improve until the Government start to do something about inflation, allow the country to live within its means and stop the import of goods which the country cannot afford by curbing inflation rather than trying to make excuses in other directions?

Mr. Shore: I am quite certain that inflation is a very serious problem for the whole country and, indeed, the whole of our exports regardless of the markets to which they are directed. I should, however, point out, in case the hon. Gentleman gets carried away with the point, that we have managed to make a substantial improvement in our trade with virtually all other markets. Therefore, some very special effort is required, particularly by British industry, to deal with the trade deficit which now exists with the EEC.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the important role that the Development Corporation for Wales has played in developing exports from Wales to EEC countries? Will he, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, consider extending aid to the development corporation to enable it to increase the number of its full-time representatives in EEC countries?

Mr. Shore: I shall certainly consider any measure which would be of assistance to exporters in any part of the United Kingdom relating to the EEC market.

Mr. John Garrett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is responsible for national policy on import substitution, and has he any policy or plan for assisting the development of specific British industries, such as footwear, which have the capacity to produce goods which are at present being imported in increasing quanties from Common Market countries?

Mr. Shore: I am equally concerned, because the other side of the coin of our balance of trade involves import substitution, and that applies not only to existing British industries but perhaps to the possibility of developing new British industries. Wherever possible, we shall encourage import substitution as well as

giving assistance, and continuing to give assistance, to our export drive.

Shipping Safety (English Channel)

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has any plans to introduce new safety regulations for supertankers and VLCCs operating in the English Channel.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Not at present, but the safety of large tankers operating around our coasts is being carefully studied. Improvements have been and continue to be implemented and we are in close touch with the French Government regarding Channel safety.

Mr. Aitken: Is the Minister aware that many of the supertankers now passing through British waters operate under flags of convenience? As a result they sometimes tend to have inadequate safety regulations on deck as well as poorly qualified officers on the bridge. In view of the enormous environmental damage which could happen if a supertanker collision occurred in the congested waters of the Channel or the North Sea, will the Minister urgently seek to tighten up all the relevant safety regulations and will he also consider following the Canadian example of establishing a system of ship traffic control comparable to the air traffic control procedures which have been in operation for many years?

Mr. Davis: So far as the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is concerned, we are certainly anxious to consider any constructive ideas wheresoever they may arise. So far as flags of convenience are concerned, my Department has said on a number of occasions that what it is really concerned about in this respect is substandard ships. Indeed, an initiative has recently been taken at IMCO in that respect, as the hon. Gentleman may be aware, in order to enable us to identify substandard ships and to take effective action against those that are identified. Certainly we are concerned about the adequacy of the training of those who serve on board tankers, and, indeed, any other ships. Regarding ships, I should add that a short while ago my Department established a study group designed to consider the construction and operation of tankers which might contribute to hazardous situations. In that


respect it is considering the questions of hull strength, crew training and operational methods.

Dr. Glyn: It is clear from the Under-Secretary's reply that he has gone into this matter in great detail, but there is one point about which I am not clear. As international law exists, surely our jurisdiction can operate only within territorial waters. Is the hon. Gentleman doing anything about that point?

Mr. Davis: This matter has certainly given us a great deal of concern, and I have been studying it with my officials. We have taken certain initiatives, but it would be premature at this stage to discuss how we shall seek to enforce our jurisdiction. It may have to be by voluntary arrangements. However, it would not be right for me to go into the matter in detail at this stage.

David Bainbridge (Manufacturing) Ltd.

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will inquire into the affairs of David Bainbridge (Manufacturing) Limited, now known as Tool-Glo Limited, of Morrison Trading Estate, Annfield Plain, Co. Durham, following the company's failure to file its annual return.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Formal inquiries under the provisions of the Companies Acts do not appear to be justified in this case. If my hon. Friend has any additional information which he would wish me to consider, I shall be happy to do so.

Mr. Watkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that this company, which among other features owes thousands of pounds in unpaid wages to its workers, recently changed hands and no one seems to know who the present legal owner is? Will he look into this matter?

Mr. Davis: If my hon. Friend has any specific evidence to which he wishes to draw my attention, I shall be happy for him to do so, either orally or by correspondence, and I will look into any allegations which might justify the kind of inquiry that he is urging me to take.

USSR

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a state-

ment on the renegotiation of the Anglo-Russian trade agreement when it ends in December.

Mr. Shore: Notice of termination of the 1969 Long-Term Trade Agreement with the Soviet Union will have to be given by the end of September 1975.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact that the Russians tried so hard to save his job for him after the referendum, because they thought that the Anglo-Russian trade agreement was in the interests of Russia, gives further strength to the view held by many of us that in the past Anglo-Russian trade has been far more to the advantage of Russia than of this country? Will he submit to the independent group of persons a study whether Anglo-Russian trade has been worth while, when export credits and other things are taken into account, before concluding a further agreement?

Mr. Shore: I take it that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to ignore the first and slightly unworthy introductory part of his question——

Mr. Ridley: No, I want an answer.

Mr. Shore: —and I turn to the more serious part about the benefit to Britain of the Anglo-Russion trade agreement. I take the view, and I believe that other hon. Members would, that we have had an unsatisfactory level of trade and an unsatisfactory balance of trade with the Soviet Union, and my concern, which I hope would be the concern of any Secretary of State for Trade, is to improve the volume of our trade with the Soviet Union, to improve our balance of trade, and to make sure at the same time that there is mutual advantage. I believe that that can be achieved.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our trade deficit with the EEC is about 20 times as large as our trade deficit with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Shore: I am aware of that, but our trade with the Soviet Union is a very small part—in my view, an unnecessarily small part—of our total trade.

Mr. Higgins: Does the Secretary of State recognise that what is important is not only exporting but being paid for exports? Is it not a fact that the arrangements recently negotiated by the Prime


Minister with the Russian Government enable the Russians to equip their industry on far better terms—given the rates of interest, the protection against inflation and likely changes in the exchange rate—than competitive industries in this country can have for their investment? That being so, and, in particular, given the difficulty of having any firm criterion regarding dumping from the Soviet Union into this country, is it not clear that on balance this agreement was not in Britain's favour?

Mr. Shore: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises already that British concerns would not conclude agreements on a firm basis unless they thought that it was broadly in their interest to do so. That is how they normally make decisions in trade matters. Second, on the question of whatever credit arrangements are made with the Soviet Union, the principal factor here, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is what is internationally available to the Soviet Union, and our only aim in these matters is to see that British exporters are not put at a disadvantage.

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent negotiations he has had with the Government of the USSR on the development of trade.

Mr. Shore: I led the British delegation to the meeting of the Anglo-Soviet Joint Commission in Moscow last month. My discussions at that time with Soviet Ministers clearly indicated that there are good prospects for a significant improvement in our trade with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Shersby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with the onward march of inflation and the continuing deterioration in the exchange rate, to go on supplying goods on traditional terms means that we are effectively giving our goods away and subsidising the Russian economy? Are we not coming perilously close to the situation in which we are involved in free exports to Russia with love?

Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The problem of inflation is undoubtedly real, but it is not so much a question of subsidising the Soviet Union through our inflation. The difficulty is that if we cannot contain our

export prices more rigorously we will simply not get the business which is undoubtedly available with the Soviet Union. I hope that we are all interested in avoiding such a situation.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the Conservative Front Bench that British industrialists are in the main pleased about the new trading arrangements with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I thought that there was an uncharacteristically surly note in the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). Surely the House welcomes expansion on reasonable terms of our trade with the Soviet Union. It is certainly the case that the CBI is very anxious that British firms should have a much larger share of the expanding Soviet market, and that is what I, too, want to see.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House to give a progress report on the Russian trade deal made earlier this year?

Mr. Shore: I am happy to report to the House from time to time on the progress of our trade with the Soviet Union and I hope that this year, 1975, the figures will show a significant increase over those of last year and previous years.

Mr. Bagier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in October a trade mission will be going from the north of England under the auspices of his Department and the North of England Development Council and that it is already over subscribed by business men from the North-East who are anxious to trade with Soviet Russia? Would he not agree that if there were a more pugnacious approach by British industry to this vast market, we should do far better than will result from the sniping that we have just heard from the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Shore: I am glad to hear of this trade mission from the North-East. I know that many trade missions are planned by British industry for the course of the coming year. Because I should not like there to be any doubt about it, I should like to emphasise that there is now a very good atmosphere in Anglo-Soviet relations and, therefore, opportunities for


doing business on a more satisfactory scale than we have had hitherto

European Community Trade Ministers

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has to visit other Ministers for Trade within the EEC.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he next expects to meet the other Trade Ministers of the EEC.

Mr. Shore: I shall attend tomorrow's meeting of the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg, where I expect to meet some of the Ministers responsible for trade in other EEC countries. I also intend as time permits to have discussions on a bilateral basis with other European Trade Ministers.

Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the other Trade Ministers at the meeting tomorrow that he totally accepts the result of the referendum, and will he therefore make clear also, in expressing the British point of view, that we shall do our best to ensure that the EEC continues to prosper?

Mr. Shore: The first assurance is in no sense necessary. I shall not go round among my colleagues in the EEC telling them about my views on the result of the referendum—of course not. What I shall say, as they would expect, is that my task will be, as it has been in the past year, to support those efforts which make sense in terms of the EEC and the rest of the world and expanding world trade in a way beneficial to all. Secondly, I shall seek, as I have done in the past, to defend the United Kingdom's interests inside the EEC in a way which, I hope, will not be unacceptable to the others.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that acceptance of the decision of the British people to remain in the Common Market does not mean that Ministers, or Members of Parliament who may go to Strasbourg, have to go on their knees to their colleagues in Europe but that the best interests of Britain and the best interests of the Common Market will be served by Ministers and Members of Parliament fighting

for the interests of the British people within the Common Market?

Mr. Shore: I am certain that that is what most people in this country would wish their Ministers to do in attending meetings of the Community.

Mr. Blaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his lukewarm answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) about his attitude towards the EEC will not help us in our relations with the other member countries, and is it not now incumbent upon him to convince his fellow Trade Ministers that he is at one with the Government in being an enthusiastic supporter of the EEC?

Mr. Heffer: Stop snivelling.

Mr. Shore: Provocative questions deserve and receive lukewarm answers. I am reasonably well known, I assure the hon. Gentleman, in both Brussels and Luxembourg, and they will know very well what my position is.

Brazil

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he hopes to make a further visit to Brazil.

Mr. Shore: While no date has been fixed, I look forward to a further visit to Brazil in due course as part of the closer governmental consultation provided for by the memorandum of understanding between our two Governments which will be signed here next autumn.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the Department doing to promote joint industrial ventures in Brazil?

Mr. Shore: We have given all kinds of assistance, technical and financial, to British firms which are seeking, as indeed they must in the Brazilian context, to establish joint ventures or partnership ventures so that they can build up their trade with Brazil. I must say that I am considerably encouraged by the progress in the increase of our exports to that country.

Mr. Warren: Will the right hon. Gentleman go to Brazil as soon as he possibly can to study how the Brazilians have managed to control inflation in a quite remarkable way—a way which, one


hopes, his own Government will very soon follow?

Mr. Shore: I went to Brazil last summer and took the opportunity to study many aspects of the Brazilian economy. Although I should not in any way seek to understate its achievements in containing inflation, I think the hon. Gentleman should be aware that the major result of Brazilian policy lies in how to live with inflation rather than how to abolish it, and I am not at all sure that that is the lesson we should wish to learn.

Sir John Hall: From his experience in Brazil, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Brazilians were extremely successful in reducing their rate of inflation, from three figures down to a level which is, in fact, lower than the rate at which ours is now running? Is that not, therefore, an experiment which we should watch with care?

Mr. Shore: We should always be prepared to look and to learn from other countries, but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the experience of Brazil 10 years ago was of inflation running at three figures—a quite fantastic rate—and Brazil's success was one of reducing inflation to a rate of 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. a year. That is an enormous relative achievement, but I hope that we shall be able to do far better ourselves.

Export Credits Guarantee Department

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the workings of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Mr. Deakins: Yes, Sir. In the past 12 months our export credit arrangements have been reinforced by a number of new facilities. It is my intention that the services to exporters available from ECGD should, overall, stand comparison with those of any other country.

Mr. Viggers: What use is a first-class ECGD system when the Government from time to time ban exports to countries whose regimes they do not like? Cannot the hon. Gentleman realise that to be excessively doctrinaire in banning exports costs money and jobs?

Mr. Deakins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little confused. We have

banned the export of arms to certain countries. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would think that appropriate in certain cases—for example, the Communist bloc countries. We have not banned the sale of any non-arms goods to anywhere, but there are certain countries where our exports are under restricted cover—for example, because of credit risks and so on.

Mr. Tim Renton: Why was the new ECGD preshipment finance policy announced in the Budget when none of the major details had been worked out? Will this policy require new legislation? What is the likely total that it will underwrite on a yearly basis?

Mr. Deakins: The change will not need legislation. Since the final details of the new policy have not yet been worked out, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any forcast of the likely cost. At this stage I can add nothing to the reply which I gave last week to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). We have drawn up an outline scheme, but there are several financial problems and until our discussions with the banks are concluded—successfully, we hope—we cannot make another statement.

South Africa

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the total of exports to and imports from South Africa in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Deakins: During the year ending May 1975 exports to South Africa were £616 million and imports £503 million on the usual overseas trade statistics basis. Our exports increased by 46 per cent. over the previous 12 months.

Mr. Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these very good figures are one of the few bright spots in our gloomy trading position, and that trade with South Africa is good for this country and the preservation of jobs? Will he use his best endeavours to persuade his colleagues to avoid giving unnecessary offence to South Africa and its people in order to appease the extreme left wing of the Labour Party?

Mr. Deakins: We would like to see our trade figures improve in every market, not merely South Africa. We have at long last lost our leading position as South Africa's major supplier, having been overtaken by West Germany. This has happened in a number of other countries and it is not necessarily related to the political feelings involved about the country concerned. Secondly, South Africa still remains one of our main markets. Thirdly, just before Christmas my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a forthright, clear and unambiguous statement about the political implications of trade with South Africa, and I have nothing to add.

Mr. Hardy: Since they are relevant, will my hon. Friend give the comparable figures for our trade with the rest of Africa?

Mr. Deakins: I cannot do so without prior notice, but I can say now that our trade with the rest of Africa has to be divided between trade with Nigeria—one of our great growth markets and a major oil producer—and a rather smaller quantity, both in exports and imports, with the rest of black Africa north of South Africa.

Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that a great procession of our people view with utter repugnance the type of racialist society existing in South Africa, and that any economic or trade deal seen to be bolstering up such a corrupt and immoral society would not be acceptable to that opinion?

Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend puts the point succinctly and I have nothing to add.

Mr. Brotherton: Will the Under-Secretary also explain that the vast majority of our people are interested only in keeping their jobs and conducting trade with everyone, whoever it may be, that trade with South Africa is of great importance to us and that Her Majesty's Government should stop taking steps to try to cut it down?

Mr. Deakins: We have taken no steps to cut down our trade in non-military goods with South Africa. We have banned arms exports, and I believe that such a policy is generally acceptable in

the country as a whole. We have taken no steps to hinder the expansion of our trade in both directions with South Africa.

Travel Security Precautions (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the effect of security precautions upon the comfort and convenience of travel to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Security precautions inevitably cause some inconvenience, which I regret, but the first priority must be to protect passengers and crew. All measures are kept under review.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of making a personal examination of the working of these arrangements, particularly at Heathrow, where they frequently involve women with children having to stand for considerable periods because there is literally no sitting room for them? Will the hon. Gentleman take up this matter personally?

Mr. Davis: I will, of course, look into the matter. The right hon. Gentleman's observations will be conveyed by me to the British Airports Authority. Both my right hon. Friend and I have questioned passengers to various destinations, including Belfast, about the security precautions which are undertaken and the inconvenience which people inevitably suffer. So far as we can ascertain, there has been overwhelming support for the measures which have been taken.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the other side, at Aldergrove, the security checks and so on are carried out with great courtesy but that there are also delays, whether for families or for individuals, and sometimes people passing through on their way to the baggage check have to stand for a while, perhaps in the rain or snow?

Mr. Davis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the searches are carried out with courtesy. That was my information. I will ensure that delays and inconvenience are investigated to see whether it is at all possible


to mitigate the difficulties. I am sure that all appropriate steps will be taken.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PAY SETTLEMENT)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the settlement of the pay claim by the National Union of Railwaymen.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): As the House will be aware, the British Rail Board opened its pay negotiations with the railway unions in April by offering an increase to match the movement in the retail price index over the preceding year, an offer which it considered to be in accordance with the TUC guidelines objective of ensuring the maintenance of real incomes.
This offer was rejected by all three unions which then, however, accepted without commitment British Rail's proposal to refer the matter to independent arbitration under the railway's negotiating procedure. The Railway Staffs National Tribunal, after a full examination of the evidence given by British Rail and each of the three railways unions, recommended on 29th May an increase in basic rates of 27·5 per cent. and other improvements including a higher minimum earnings level for railmen.
This award was accepted by ASLEF and TSSA, but the NUR Executive rejected it and gave notice to the board of its intention to call a national strike from 23rd June unless the board conceded an increase of 30 per cent. to all railwaymen on rates above £36 per week and 35 per cent. to those whose rates were below that figure.
After lengthy negotiations in which the NUR indicated a willingness to move from its claim, the board made an offer which in the view of the union negotiators was acceptable, and this was subsequently unanimously accepted by the NUR Executive. Under this agreement the arbitration award will be payable from the settlement date, 28th April, and there will be a further increase in basic rates of 2½ per cent. from 4th August. In addition, from the same date there will be a temporary allowance on a sliding scale to the lower paid railway workers.
British Rail estimates that the total cost of the settlement, which includes consolidation of threshold payments valued at £4·40, will be 29·8 per cent. in the current year. The cost to the industry's pay bill will be £123 million, which is some £9·3 million higher than the cost of the RSNT award.
The House will join with me in welcoming the fact that the two sides reached an agreement by negotiation and that a damaging rail strike has thus been avoided. The Government would of course have preferred that a settlement had been reached on the basis recommended by the Railway Staff National Tribunal, even though the settlement was significantly less than the NUR claim.
In making its original offer British Rail drew attention to the serious financial problems facing the industry and has made it clear that the cost of this settlement will have to be met by economies and improvements in productivity which will be worked out by the board in consultation with the unions.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State say what proportion of this settlement will be paid for by higher taxes, higher railway fares, or the cutting of railway jobs and available services? Secondly, would he not agree that the settlement demonstrates yet again that militancy pays handsome dividends and has undermined the authority of wage arbitration and the credibility of the ASLEF and TSSA leaders who bravely honoured the arbitration award? Thirdly, does he realise that the Government are making themselves an international joke by punctuating their strong and abrasive weekend cries and speeches for wage restriction by repeated examples of the most humiliating surrender to militancy?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman's description of what has occurred is a travesty of the situation and a travesty of what has been said. It has already been indicated by British Rail—and I said it in my statement—that of course the extra cost of this settlement will have to be borne in extra fares or by rearrangements in manpower and productivity. So the hon. Gentleman should not have made the statement in his first question.
The figures do not bear out the suggestion that this was not a negotiation, which is apparently the implication of the


hon. Gentleman's remarks. The settlement is above the amount proposed by the arbitration award, and certainly we should have preferred the arbitration award to be accepted. But although it is above the amount proposed by the award, it is below the amount claimed by the NUR. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sure that the only thing that many Opposition Members wanted was a strike. All they wanted was not merely that the whole country should be held to ransom but that we should have a national strike of the most serious proportions. That seems to be the implication of their remarks. But that certainly was not our view. We wished to see a negotiated settlement, and I am glad that that has been secured.

Mr. Bagier: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the agreement was based on fair play and justice for the basic rate railwaymen? In spite of the hysterical shouting by the Opposition, does he not agree that the new money element involved in the settlement is still one of the lowest to be reached in the public sector over the past 12 months? Would he not also agree that the leaders of the NUR have said repeatedly that they believe in a pay policy but—[Laughter.] —Hon. Members opposite may smile, but is not one of the gravest problems facing the country how to have a basic pay policy that can be seen to be working? Is not the basic reason why the leaders of the NUR wanted a settlement the fact that they could not and cannot accept a policy based on their members subsidising cheap railway fares or services at the expense of their wages?

Mr. Foot: I fully accept my hon. Friend's statement that the NUR had a strong case, which it put with great strength. I must tell my hon. Friend and the House, however, that that case was put to the arbitration tribunal. As I have said, the Government would have preferred the arbitration award to be accepted, but the NUR made it clear before the issue was referred to arbitration that it was not necessarily committing itself to accepting the arbitration award. It also made clear that it would continue to press its case in negotiation. It had a case, and that case was accepted in negotiation, and that has led to this award.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the settlement is within or without the social contract? If it is outside the social contract, can he say what proposals the Government have to ensure that future wage settlements are made within the social contract? Finally, can he say whether there is any assurance from the NUR that it will take part in meaningful discussions with British Rail on the manpower reductions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred?

Mr. Foot: The NUR has always been prepared to engage in meaningful discussions with British Rail, and I am sure that it will be prepared to do so in future. The figure at which the settlement has been reached is certainly outside the guidelines of the social contract. Indeed, the award of the arbitration tribunal was outside the guidelines of the social contract. I am not seeking to conceal these facts. They are evident to anybody who examines the matter.
As for future policy, as the House knows the Government have been having discussions with the trade unions and others concerned about how we may produce a better observance of the guidelines in future than we have had in the past, and what we are seeking to do, and what I advise the House to continue to seek to do, is to secure by consent and persuasion results that certainly cannot be achieved by force and statutory provisions.

Mr. James Lamond: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the people who are now urging that we should have a brutal confrontation with the railway workers are the very same people who, when confronted with a series of one-day strikes by the signalmen, were repeatedly, continually and vociferously asking my right hon. Friend to interfere and to prevent a strike? Does it not seem that the Opposition want to have their cake and eat it?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recalling that series of occasions on which Opposition Members urged upon British Rail that they should abandon the agreement they had reached with the unions and proceed to make a special agreement with the signalmen. We resisted that because we said that these


matters must be dealt with in the discussions between British Rail and the unions, according to the normal negotiating procedure. Part of our policy and part of our understanding with the unions is based on our agreement to restore collective bargaining between British Rail, other nationalised bodies and other employers and unions. We have restored free collective bargaining, and we cannot be interfering with it right and left, as Conservative Members seem to suggest.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that the so-called social contract has completely broken down? Will he pay attention to what Mr. Scanlon is saying, because it seems to make a great deal more political sense than what he and his right hon. Friends are putting forward? Is he aware that the proposals for a new social contract are just so much gobbledygook in view of the complete failure of the present arrangements?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has followed as closely as I have what Mr. Scanlon said last week. What he did at his national committee meeting was to uphold the social contract. Unfortunately, he was defeated in the vote, as happens in other places. People are sometimes defeated in the vote. We have to repair the situation as best we can when such things occur.
That does not mean that the social contract has failed or that the whole idea of trying to secure agreement between the Government and the unions, not merely on wages but on a whole range of policies, has broken down. It is the only way in which we can secure a democratic solution to the problem. I think that some Conservative Members want a quite different kind of solution.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate on this matter or on the social contract now. I am determined to maintain the Opposition's rights with their Supply Day. I will take one more question from each side.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there will be general satisfaction that there is no railway strike? Does he recall that last week it was said

that if there were a strike it would be disastrous? Should there not be some sign of appreciation from Conservative Members that a strike has been avoided? Does my right hon. Friend realise that he is more likely to secure the future of Britain by pursuing a policy of cooperation and conciliation in industry than by pursuing a policy of conflict and confrontation, such as we have had from the Conservatives?

Mr. Foot: We believe that the best way to settle these problems is by conciliation and negotiation and restoring faith in these procedures. We intend to persist in this policy despite all attempts to push us into a quite different policy which could lead only to ruptures and to the destruction of our industrial relations—a position we knew a year or so ago. That is the fact of the matter. The House had better face the choice. Either we do these things by consent or we seek to use dictatorial methods which will never succeed.

Mr. Prior: How can it ever be fair if the Government give way to the strong and then hammer the weak, which is what is happening in our society? If the right hon. Gentleman now admits that this settlement is outside the social contract, may I ask him to give one example of a pay settlement in the public services that has been within the social contract? Can he also tell us what guidance the Government gave to the Railways Board when it said that there was no more money other than that which was available to meet the arbitration award? Is he not ashamed of the fact that his inaction in dealing with the inflationary wage situation, now totally out of control, means that thousands more people will be out of work this winter, including a large number of school leavers? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman wanted a serious debate on this subject I am surprised that he did not select today's Supply Day rather than this tuppenny ha'penny motion which is on the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] It is the right hon. Gentleman who is running away from real debate on the subject. He could have had a debate on the subject today. I will certainly be happy, at any time that the


House decides and it is so agreed, to have a debate and general discussion on these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are hammering the weak and letting the strong through is a complete caricature of the situation, particularly when it is allied with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there have not been settlements in the public sector within the guidelines of the agreement——

Mr. Adley: Name one.

Mr. Foot: I could start with the agreement made by the local authority manual workers last November, which was within the guidelines laid down by the TUC. On the occasions when we have had a debate on the matter I have sought to elucidate this as best I can for the benefit of Conservative Members. But they are not very eager to learn. That is one of their troubles. The right hon. Gentleman asked me what I said when British Rail said that there was no more money to meet the claim. I do not know what he has heard from British Rail. As I understand it, British Rail was conducting these negotiations, and that was the right way to go about it.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pendry.]

Orders of the Day — TRADE UNIONS (POSTAL BALLOTS)

Mr. Speaker: It would be helpful it I were to give some indication as to the scope of this debate. I have considered the rules relating to debates on the Adjournment as stated in "Erskine May" at pages 356–7. Only incidental reference to legislative action is permissible on motions for the Adjournment. Therefore extended argument for legislation regarding the system of holding ballots for trade union appointments would be out of order. In particular, it would not be in order under the rules on anticipation to propose including legislation on this matter in a Bill at present before the House. I understand that amendments have been discussed in Standing Committee F to the Employment Protection Bill. It would not be in order in this debate to refer to the debate in the Standing Committee or to discuss possible amendments to that Bill.
That means, in effect, that the debate on the matter must be in general terms, on the general principle.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that everyone must now recognise that the House is put to great inconvenience through having a debate on this subject when the confines of the debate are so narrow. Perhaps you would assist the House further by saying what would be in order.

Mr. Speaker: I think a debate on the general principle as opposed to particular amendments to legislation.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling. I do not believe that it will present any difficulties on the Conservative


side of the House. I hope that the Government will not shelter behind your ruling to avoid discussing this matter properly.
I begin by commenting on what the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to questions about the railway dispute. I wonder what he would have said if on the Thursday before there was any agreement or settlement in that dispute the Opposition had notified the House of their intention to have a Supply Day debate on the railway industry this afternoon. The Secretary of State would have been the first person to say that such a debate, in the middle of difficult negotiations, was an attempt to sabotage any arrangements that might be made. I hope that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will think it fitting to withdraw his accusation. Perhaps he can also find Government time for a discussion about what has just happened in the railway industry settlement and in other settlements which have far exceeded the social contract guidelines laid down by the Government.
As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) pointed out, we cannot expect one section of society to settle readily when other sections are seen to be getting a lot more. That underlines the problems into which the Government have got themselves.
I want to start the debate in a quiet manner—suitable for a debate that is taking place on the Adjournment—in which a general discussion can take place and in which all hon. Members will feel free to put their points of view without the fear that there is to be a Division at the end or that a motion is before the House. Experience has taught me that the House of Commons is at its best when it is discussing matters of general importance without the fear of a Division at the end. On a matter of this sort the House should seek the maximum amount of agreement possible.
There is no doubt that all hon. Members believe that maximum democratic participation in union elections is desirable and that everyone should be encouraged to take part. There is a motion, which deals with trade union postal ballots, signed mostly by Labour Members:

That this House, in the interests of maximum democratic participation, urges the Government to introduce legislation to ensure the provision of financial aid for postal ballots in trade union elections.
I am quite certain that that motion reflects the overwhelming view of all hon. Members. It must be right to make it easier for people to take part in union elections.
Labour Members, quite rightly, insist on management being accountable to the public for every tiny exercise in decision-making, but they insist on the unions alone being excused from public accountability. It is not my purpose to show the inadequacy of such a view. However, if unions insist on being responsible only to their members, there should be fuller opportunity for all their members to take part in the decisions they have to take.
In recent years there has been a steady decline in those taking part in union elections. I quote figures from the Amalagamated Union of Engineering Workers. A total of 8·6 per cent. took part in the last election for a general secretary before postal balloting was introduced and in the last election when Mr. Boyd was elected 30·1 per cent. took part. That is not a very high figure, but it is an enormous improvement on what had gone before.
Methods which were appropriate when unions were small bands of keen volunteers do not suffice in times of the closed shop and the enormous numbers of people now involved in the unions. Members are not free to attend branch meetings on all occasions, because of shift work, and inconvenient times and places. Most branches do not expect very large attendances from their union members. If more than a very small percentage of union members turned up at a branch meeting, it would be impossible to hold that meeting in the room generally used for that purpose. Therefore, no one expects a great number of people to turn up at a branch union meeting.
I should like to quote—and it will be the only quotation of the afternoon—from Lord Donovan's report. He said:
However, a very low level of participation runs the risk of placing power in the hands of unrepresentative minorities and weakening the authority of elected officers.
In many unions polls are low because voting in all elections continues to take place at branch meetings, although the focus of union activity has now shifted from the branch to the


workplace. To conduct elections at branch meetings in such circumstances is virtually to ensure a low poll. Some alternative method must be found by these unions if more members are to be persuaded to vote.
One such method is the postal vote. In several unions ballot papers are sent to every member by post. This means that an impending election is brought to the attention of each member and provides him with an opportunity of voting with the minimum of personal inconvenience.
That makes extremely good sense. I understand that the leadership of the unions wishes to be representative. It is not my purpose to make life more difficult possibly by having legal sanctions against trade unions. The fewer legal sanctions there are, the better. However, a method which would enable postal balloting to take place if a union so wished would be of great help.

Mr. John Golding: Is it the view of the Opposition that every union official should be elected by a total ballot of the membership, or is it their view that, perhaps, some trade union officials could be appointed, or elected by annual conferences, as at present?

Mr. Prior: I shall deal with that point later in my remarks, but if I do not answer the hon. Gentleman's question perhaps he would remind me of it. If the leadership of the unions wishes to be representative—and I think it does—it has to recognise that at present there is, according to some people, widespread public hostility, and, according to others, just public hostility against unions as a whole.
A recent Opinion Research Centre poll—and I do not always go by such polls, but they are tolerably accurate—showed that only 18 per cent. of the public had a great deal of confidence in the way unions are run. Therefore, with the great power that unions wield, it is important that they should be seen to be representative. For example, of the 345 members of the executives of our 13 largest unions, 50 are Communists, yet we know that about 0·1 per cent. of the trade unions vote Communist. There are no Tories. I hope very much that the Tories can improve that record and I am encouraging every Tory not only to belong to a union but to play a part in the union. That would help us get our

fair share of people on the executives, considering that about 30 per cent. of trade unionists vote Conservative. I do not think that anyone can say that at present the executives of the unions are representative of the people by whom they are elected.
It is not my purpose to prove that the unions would necessarily be less Left-wing if we had postal votes. It is only the protestations of some of the Left-wing that make me believe that this must be the case. When I recently heard the deeply moving plea by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that postal voting would cost a great deal of public money and, therefore, he was against it because it would increase public expenditure too much, I realised only too well that his motives were much deeper than the cost of the public money involved.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the right hon. Gentleman now advocating increased public expenditure? That is not the view that his party repeatedly puts forward.

Mr. Prior: I shall come to that matter as well, but in this case I am certainly advocating increased public expenditure. For the sum involved, this would be the best possible way to help this country get out of some difficulties. I recognise as well that we do not get democracy by the post alone. I want to enlarge on one or two other ideas in this respect.
Certainly cost has been an important factor with certain unions in deciding whether to continue or to move to a system of postal balloting. No one can now underestimate the fact that if the post goes up to lop or 11p, there will be a considerable addition to union expenses. But at the moment, judged on the 5½p stamp, a postal ballot every 12 months for all unions, and for just the election of their national officials, would cost, I am told, £1·1 million if everyone voted. That is a small price to pay for greater participation by the membership.
It is not easy for a union in these inflationary times——

Mr. Joseph Dean: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted only a ballot for leading officials. If we extended democratic procedures to the election of district officials, which we should if the


principle is correct, would not that £1 million be an insignificant part of the total cost?

Mr. Prior: The cost then would obviously be more significant. We should be prepared to discuss figures, which the Secretary of State can no doubt produce, but I do not believe that, whether the cost was £1 million or £5 million, that sum of money could not be saved by the Government. One of the last times that I stood at this Box was to attack the £10 million that the Government decided to refund to the trade unions under the Finance (No. 2) Act 1974. That money would have been better used for this purpose. So Labour Members should not get too touchy, on grounds of cost at any rate. It is not easy for a union——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Prior: No, I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. Why he cannot keep quiet for a few minutes I cannot understand. I see no reason at this stage why I should give way to him.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman knows why. The last time, he gave figures that were wrong.

Mr. Prior: It is not easy for a union in these inflationary times to decide to have a postal ballot. What we want to do is help the leaders to find a representative point of view and to take away from the minority the excuse that their unions would be democratic if they could afford it.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way to me for a moment? He could greatly assist the House by some simple clarification of his aim. Does he seek to impose upon the unions a system of postal ballots or is he simply advising that the Government should make finance available for such unions as might decide through their normal executive decisions to take advantage of such Government finance if it were offered to them? Would he clarify that point, so that we know which direction the debate is taking?

Mr. Prior: I am coming to that. The hon. Member's patience would have been rewarded in a short while. Of course our view is that the facilities should be made available to unions which wanted them. There is no element of compulsion in the proposal that we put forward in another place at another time and in our election manifesto of October 1974.
Another constant objection is that it is the activists who attend branch meetings and that therefore they have a right to decide who should be elected, and that it is up to everyone to go to a branch meeting if he wishes to vote. Nowadays, people have many other things to do, and not everyone wishes to go to meettings. The argument that one should be allowed to vote only if one takes part in the activities was advanced in the eighteenth century against the extension of the franchise. No one should put forward that argument today.
We are concerned to try to get more people to take part. There may be strong arguments for holding meetings for union elections in employers' time and on their premises. I like to think of this as a twin exercise. We should enable those unions which wish to take advantage of the postal ballot to take the chance of having those expenses paid. Where we are talking about branch elections or shop floor elections where a branch is not confined to one establishment, it would be right for the employer to provide a place for the meeting and to allow it to take place in his time. The combined effect would be a remarkable help to greater participation in elections for union office.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not argue that Parliament cannot attempt to tell a union by statute how to conduct its affairs and what rules it should have. We are not saying what unions must or must not do. We would simply give the union the right to organise its affairs in that way if it wished. That would meet the views of the enormous majority of people.
Of course all these things are much better done by consultation and agreement. I do not agree that the Conservative Party should not put this forward. We have had similar proposals in our last two election manifestos and we have a perfect right to put this proposal forward. Some Labour Members seem


to find it almost impossible to believe that the Conservative Party could make any constructive suggestion about the trade unions. In the light of the present economic situation, and what has happened in recent months, many people might be wishing that the Conservative Party were still able to put their views into effect.
So what are we asking the Government to do? I repeat that there would be no compulsion but, we would hope, encouragement, and I believe that the vast majority of the House of Commons agree with that. The strange thing about the House is that it has proved time and time again that it is not as unrepresentative of views outside it as some people would have us believe. The referendum was a very good example of that.
The power of the unions is immense, in relation both to the public generally and to their own members. The closed shop has increased it. It has made many people join who have had no particular interest in joining a union. It is all the more important that in the election of officials the greatest possible number of members should be encouraged to take part.

Mr. John Evans: The right hon. Gentleman has often referred to the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and percentage figures. For the benefit of the House, will he state which national trade unions other than the AUEW elect all their officers?

Mr. Prior: That would take some considerable time. In my experience, nearly every union adopts a different method of selecting or electing its union officers. In fairness to the AUEW, it has one of the most democratic constitutions of all the unions and I would not in any way want people to get the impression that I was attacking the AUEW on this point. All I have tried to do is to point out that since the AUEW adopted the postal ballot system the number of people taking part in elections has risen from about 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. to 30 per cent. or 40 per cent., and I understand that at district level many of the close contests there have resulted in the numbers taking part amounting to 40 per cent. or 50 per cent.
To sum up, we believe, first, that elections should be regular and should be contested; and secondly, that if they are by post the State should pay the cost of postage for the ballot. I go one stage further and say that I think that there should be one free post for the election address of candidates involved. If the election is not to take place by post—and many unions may decide that they do not wish to do it in that way—I believe that it would be right for it to take place on employers' premises and in employers' time. Voting, of course, should be secret and administered by an independent group such as the Electoral Reform Society.
This means cash from State or employer. The principle of State subsidy finds much favour among hon. Members opposite, but not so far when applied to union democracy. We shall encourage them to see the light.

Mr. John Tomlinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear to the House whether in what he is saying he is dropping the proposal he raised in Standing Committee of involving the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which many of us think would have been disastrous for this purpose?

Mr. Prior: I have purposely not mentioned the ACAS because, although I think that it would be a perfectly reasonable way of doing it, it meets with objections. The important thing in a matter of this sort is that the House of Commons should try to speak as a House of Commons and that we should look for the widest possible measure of agreement between the various sides of the House. For that reason, I have not mentioned that proposal, today.
I want to see the Government come forward, after consultation with the TUC and other interested parties, with a proposal to put before the House. This is such a vital matter that we should not delay long in bringing it forward. The whole purpose of a debate on the Adjournment is to enable hon. Members to put their point of view without having to vote against or vote for a motion. We want action to be taken. The sooner it comes the better. We are not particularly worried as to what form it takes or how the body is set up which is to make certain


that the money when allocated is properly spent. Whatever happens, we want to see action.

Mr. Golding: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer my question, as he promised? Is the Tory Party advocating the abandonment of the appointment of officers or their indirect election in favour of the direct election of officers in each union? If he is not, is he aware that the appointment of officers is the practice in the moderate unions and the election of officers is the practice in the more militant unions?

Mr. Prior: I am suggesting to trade unions that if they wish to be truly representative of the people that they represent there is much to be said in 1975 for new systems of election, whether they be by post or whether they be on the shop floor in the employer's time. I am not trying to dictate to unions whether they should have elections. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to wave his hand, but a great many people believe that some new systems should at least be tried and the systems made available for them to take part. If unions do not take advantage of them, that is up to them. Our job in the House is to make it possible for those new systems to be used if unions wish to use them. That is the purpose of this debate. It will be of interest to the country outside to see how the House reacts to a suggestion of this nature.

4.16 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): If the House of Commons chooses to have a debate on the question of postal ballots in trade unions, I have no ground for complaint. It is evident that hon. Members in different parts of the House wish to discuss the subject and have thought it to be one of considerable importance. They have tabled a motion which has raised the matter and, therefore, I certainly have no complaint about a general discussion on the subject.
However, I think that I am entitled to underline that this debate occurs in peculiar circumstances, to state it no higher. I always try to be as self-restrained as I can in these matters. I may be wrong, but in all my experience in the House I cannot recall a debate of this character which

was proposed for discussion in the House as a whole in the middle of Committee proceedings elsewhere.
It was for that reason that Mr. Speaker gave his ruling beforehand. It was a ruling which was in perfect accord with the rules of the House, and, if I may be impertinent enough to say so, they are very good rules of the House. People sometimes deride the rules of the House of Commons and sometimes the rules deserve to be derided. However, often the rules of the House have been devised on reasonable grounds.
A rule of the House to the effect that there shall not be references in the House to Committee proceedings whilst the Committee proceedings are continuing, and in particular that there shall not be duplicated debates on the subject, is a very intelligent arrangement. It is designed to avoid duplication. It is designed to ensure that there shall not be one decision and one answer given in Committee and something else happening on the Floor of the House. It is designed to fit in with the whole of the Committee proceedings and Report proceedings in the House.
Moreover, the Committee proceedings and Report proceedings, which I know are sometimes criticised in some quarters because of the slowness of the operation, are also designed to enable Governments to take account of what is said by the House of Commons and to return on Report and to give a reasoned comment, perhaps in the form of a fresh amendment, on what has been said in Committee.
For all these reasons, on which I need not elaborate, the House of Commons has laid down as some of its rules that some separation shall be preserved between what happens in Committee and what happens on the Floor of the House. It is a very sensible arrangement.
I believe that this debate, despite all the skilful efforts of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) to avoid the difficulties, is a defiance of that commonsense principle. Debates in Committee are proceeding. All the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman were rehearsed in Committee and replied to by Ministers and others who participated in the debates. The debate was left suspended. I am sure that everyone who is serving on the Committee will agree that


there is no more skilful, knowledgeable and expert Minister than my hon. Friend the Minister of State. On neither side of the House of Commons is there anyone more capable of carrying the Bill through Committee than is my hon. Friend, and he made the position clear by saying that we would consider the matter.
Therefore, it is strange for us to have a debate which disrupts that procedure. Moreover, it is no good the right hon. Gentleman's saying that he is merely following normal practice in this respect, because he is specifically asking for legislation. That is the whole point of the debate. What the right hon. Gentleman wants cannot be done by administration or by the Government deciding to administer the law in a different way, which is one of the functions of debates on the Adjournment. It can be done only if the Government bring in a new law, and we should have to debate how such a new law would operate and whether such a new law could be devised. I repeat that the procedures of the House of Commons are precisely designed for that purpose in Committee and on Report and not on the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Leon Brittan: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has not been interrupted by the Chair nor fallen foul of the rules of the House, would it not be better to get on to the substance of the debate rather than objecting to the fact that it is taking place?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point—I am not altogether surprised. If he examines the facts he will see that what I am saying is indisputable. The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to give an indication of the legislative reaction of the Government to what he proposes. Were I to do that, it would be an infringement of the rules which Mr. Speaker made clear at the beginning of the debate. If I am not to do that, and if I am not to be permitted to answer that question, it is difficult to see how the matter can be dealt with.

Mr. James Johnson: As the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), like myself, represents a fishing port, would it not have been more sensible to have used

this valuable time to debate the state of the fishing industry?

Mr. Prior: Mr. Prior rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. We are getting disorderly. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) knows that we like only one intervention at a time. Mr. Speaker listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which obviously was in order. I advise the House that it is being asked to discuss the principle of postal ballots,

Mr. Norman Buchan: I assure the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) was merely pointing out that the debate, not being a fishing debate, was a red herring.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), like the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), is quite out of order.

Mr. Prior: During this Session there are five or six more Supply Days. I hope that very soon we shall be able to have a half-day debate on fishing, for which I have made the necessary representations.

Mr. Foot: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance that he will do better next time. I shall now proceed as best I can to deal with the subject.
I must insist that I cannot deal with the question of what the Government will do by legislation, because that would be out of order.

Mr. Prior: Come off it.

Mr. Foot: That is the fact of the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman should have found that out before he started the debate.
I turn to what the right hon. Gentleman said about cost. Estimates have been given before on this subject, and our estimate of the cost of postal ballots as they are at present carried over in union elections is about £250,000. If postal ballots were to be extended on the scale suggested by the right hon. Gentleman to cover a whole series of unions—presumably the purpose of his proposal is to encourage unions to resort to this method—the cost would be greatly increased. If


we were to go further and, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, arrange for free postage for candidates' election addresses, the cost would be greater still.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said, questions of public expense are involved. If we were to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in the way he described, the cost would be very considerable. There are other bodies which would be entitled to say "If the trade unions are to be given free postal facilities, we also should be considered for those facilities". A large number of bodies are already saying that special postal facilities should be made available to them—newspapers and others. That is not an infallible reason for not embarking on this course, but it is a reason for considering the matter, which is what the Government have said they are doing.

Mr. Ian Gow: The Secretary of State is a member of an administration whose borrowing requirement is £9,000 million. Is he saying that the £1·1 million suggested by my right hon. Friend is relevant for discussion at all?

Mr. Foot: I was answering the question because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to an answer on the specific point he raised. He asked me to comment on his figures, and I am doing so. I am saying that it is not even a question of £1,500,000 which he specified but a considerably greater figure. It is not easy to calculate the total figure but it is very much bigger than anything the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Sir John Rodgers: Will the Secretary of State inform the House whether there is a valid reason why, should there be postal voting, trade unions should not pay this charge themselves? They are stiff with money and quite rich.

Mr. Foot: That is a view which the hon. Gentleman takes, but it happens to conflict with the proposal put forward by his right hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman's torpedo may have been aimed at me but it has hit his own Front Bench.
Let me refer in more general terms to the whole idea of ballots. The right hon.

Gentleman said that he thought that the public generally would favour such an extension of postal ballots and that there was a general sentiment amongst the public that ballots might be a successful method of dealing with strikes and other industrial troubles. Until a few years ago there was a widespread view amongst some sections of the public—how widespread no one can tell for certain, but there was a general feeling expressed in some newspapers—that ballots might be successful in making strikes less probable, that if a ballot were enforced before strike action occurred it would be revealed that leaders were more moderate than their followers, or the situation in various unions would be exposed. That was one of the arguments that were used. It has some plausibility if the view is taken that it might reveal more clearly the view of trade union members. I am not saying that there are not circumstances in which it is right and proper, advisable and necessary for there to be ballots. Of course, a number of unions have ballots. I am talking now about strike actions and not postal ballots for executive offices. None the less, a similar point is involved.
I am not saying that ballots are wrong in all circumstances. There are some unions that lay down in their constitutions that there should be ballots. They have varying rules as to how it should be done. The National Union of Mineworkers has always operated a ballot system. It is difficult to determine whether that union would have had fewer strikes or more strikes if it had not used the ballot system. I am not making any judgment on the matter, but a few years ago there was a general feeling that one of the ways to ensure that strike action was never taken, unless fully backed by a union's members, was to ensure that there should be ballots.
The Opposition, when they introduced the Industrial Relations Act, ensured that ballots should be enforced in certain circumstances. The Act provided that those circumstances should be determined in the end by the Secretary of State for Employment. We all remember well the occasion when that happened. It was decided by the Secretary of State for Employment that a ballot should be ordered in the case of the railway workers. I shall not be so sadistic as to recall in exact terms what happened.


However, that event disproved the claim, or helped to do so, that ballots would make strikes less likely or that union leaders did not have their followers behind them. The ballot to which I have referred had exactly the opposite effect to what was intended. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman's administration never again resorted to that weapon.
There may be some comparable situations as regards postal ballots. Again, I am not passing any judgment. There may be cases where it is better to have postal ballots for the election of officers. I am not criticising those unions which have such a procedure, nor am I criticising the unions that do not. I point out that it is a great mistake to think that in some way the postal ballot is a panacea for the ills that Conservative Members sometimes describe, or that it is likely to be successful in all cases. It is a mistake to think that we can apply the same system, or encourage the application of the same system, in many different unions and in many different circumstances. To say that shows a misunderstanding of how different unions conduct their business.
In some respects, I sympathise with those unions which do not have postal ballots but elect their officers on a different basis which is conducted properly and democratically. Many unions conduct their affairs—and have done so for years—on a democratic basis without postal ballots and without anyone making accusations to the contrary. Now it seems that the quality, character or eligibility of their leaders is somehow suspect. That is the implication of what some people say when they talk of postal ballots providing a complete remedy.
So that there is no misunderstanding, I repeat that what I have said does not mean that I am against postal ballots, and particularly in cases where it has been found by experience to be the most successful way in which unions can conduct their business. Equally, I am not saying that there is not a case for the extension of the postal ballot procedure. All I am saying is that it is much better for hon. Members to approach these matters without being so dogmatic and without thinking that the solution will have to be applied in all circumstances.
There are some difficulties involved. If public money is to be provided to

the unions it must be given under certain provisions. Certain rules would have to be laid down as to how it was to be supplied. I am not saying that means could not be devised by which that could be done without infringing the unions' rights, but we would have to be careful. Although I am not allowed to refer to the amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee, I think that I am able to indicate my prejudice. I believe that the amendment provided a clumsy way of proceeding. We would have to ensure that we did not intervene in such a way as to infringe the rights of the unions or in a way that would exacerbate the problems that we are seeking to solve.
Not merely is that necessary in the interests of justice and intelligence, but it is also part of our obligation under the ILO. I must draw that matter to the attention of the Opposition. I am not quite sure how enthusiastic they may be about the conventions laid down by the ILO, but I hope they will not care to repudiate them in any way. Before I go further, I must point out that I am not suggesting that this is the proposal put forward by the Opposition. All that we are discussing is the general principle. I must underline that one of the dangers to be avoided in an attempt to control by statute the election procedures of unions, either by requiring ballots to be held or by requiring that elections should be valid only if a certain proportion of members vote, is union resentment. I must point out that such an approach would be bitterly resented by many unions, and probably by most.
It would also probably be contrary to ILO Convention No. 87, ratified by this country, which provides in Article 3 that
workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom…The public authorities shall refrain from any interferences which would restrict this right, or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
In practical terms, attempts to lay down minimum voting percentages might encourage the use of delegated or block voting procedures rather than secret ballots. Indeed, any interventions would have to be carefully designed so that they did not breach that ILO convention.
I hope that Conservative Members would not wish to move in that direction. I do not say that they have always


been great enthusiasts for ILO conventions. However, the convention to which I have referred was signed by one of my predecessors way back in 1948—namely, Mr. George Isaacs. If there had been anything wrong with the convention a number of Conservative Ministers could have intervened in the interim—for example, Lord Monckton, Mr. Iain Macleod, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), Lord Blakenham, the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw). They have all been at the Department of Employment and they have accepted that ILO convention in their time. I dare say that some have even been to Geneva and given their general acclamation and support for it. I hope that they will not suggest now that we should depart from the excellent principle, in my opinion, that is laid down in the convention.

Mr. Prior: I must point out that not one word of what I had to say necessitated the right hon. Gentleman's having to read out of all this elaborate stuff.

Mr. Foot: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman, to keep himself in order, was discussing the general principle of postal ballots. I thought that he was determined to discuss the general principle. I am discussing the general principle because it happens to be impinged upon by the ILO convention. The convention deals precisely with one aspect of the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that what he is proposing is impinged upon by the convention his proposition may sound all the more sinister. That must be the result if he does not understand what he is proposing, or what might be the result of the proposition.
Perhaps I should point out that what the right hon. Gentleman proposed in Committee could have had the result that I have suggested. Equally, some of the suggestions that have been made today could have that result. I shall quote one of the suggestions made by one of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends. I hope that it will not be considered too offensive to do so. I have the document

with me, if I can find it. I refer to the speech that was made yesterday on this subject. It is rather difficult to follow the various speeches that come out from day to day. If I cannot find it, I shall have to paraphrase it. I must search a little further, because I am sure that nobody would be more disappointed than the right hon. Gentleman in question if I did not quote him. I am referring to a speech made by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). Therefore, I refer to his words with considerable diffidence. The right hon. Gentleman is caught between the two sides. I am not sure whether he is a Thatcherite or a Heathite. I do not know whether he would own up to being a Walkerite, but I can understand anybody who takes such an attitude.
The right hon. Member for Worcester in a speech at the weekend referred to the subject of postal ballots, the principle of which we are now discussing. There is no doubt what he was saying—namely, that the Government should provide facilities whereby such an important area of British life can make its major decisions by properly conducted postal ballots. The implication of what he said was that it is improbable that this area of British public life could be properly conducted unless by means of postal ballot. That is a very dangerous implication for the reasons I have given. If Conservatives come to the House and say that the only way in which real democratic decisions can be made is by means of the postal ballot, they are saying that they know better than the individual unions themselves. Those Conservatives are saying that they wish to impose their wills upon the unions. If that is the case, we should once again be back to the nonsense of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Nobody is a greater authority on that legislation than the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), to whom I shall now give way.

Mr. Ian Percival: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which I take as intended to be a compliment. However, he is in danger of turning what should be a useful discussion of a matter in which this House might assist those who are interested in the subject and wish to see greater democracy in our unions into something quite different. He is either deliberately


or accidentally misunderstanding my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). It is clear that we are not seeking to impose anything on anybody in any way. What is proposed springs from the suggestion by some people—and a good many trade unions are of this view—that postal ballots might be useful. The question is whether the House can do anything to assist those unions which wish to try such a suggestion. Surely this is a matter which we should discuss seriously rather than on the wrongful basis adopted by the Secretary of State for Employment, who is acting in this debate in a niggling way which ill-becomes the holder of so great an office.

Mr. Foot: I was not discussing the matter in a reprehensible way, but was quoting the right hon. Member for Worcester. I was fully entitled to do so. The right hon. Gentleman made a clear declaration on this subject—much clearer than anything said by other Conservatives. The right hon. Gentleman said in a speech made at the weekend that the way in which the country could be rescued from its present economic difficulties was by adopting the postal ballot system, which he thought should be spread much more widely over the whole field so as to he regarded as democratic. I know that all my hon. Friends, of whatever shades of opinion, take the view that it is nonsense to talk of a universal system which should be imposed. It is nonsense to suggest that unions by conducting elections under the present system, which may be non-postal, are adopting a less democratic system than that adopted by other unions. It is nonsense to raise the question of postal ballots as a way of handing out medals to the unions. It is nonsense to put forward the idea of postal ballots as a way in which unions must conduct their affairs in order to be democratic. Those who speak in that way—and I have quoted the right hon. Member for Worcester—do great damage to their cause. I do not believe that it is possible to conduct the matter fairly in that way.

Mr. George Park: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the explanation is much simpler—namely, that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) heard this matter

discussed elsewhere, picked up some ideas which met with general approval, and thought that this was a good thing to hitch his wagon to, so that we have been landed with this debate this afternoon?

Mr. Foot: I have studied carefully not only what was said by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft, but what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), and I recommend to the whole House that when those proceedings are reported to the House everybody should study my hon. Friend's words.
I can add nothing to what has been indicated elsewhere since I am not entitled to refer to those matters in this debate. I should like to add one word in view of the terms in which this matter has sometimes been discussed. It is extremely dangerous to suggest that if elections are manipulated in this way it will give moderates a better chance to win elections. In the discussions on these matters there is one word which I should almost like to see banned from the dictionary. I refer to the word "moderates". I have always been very suspicious of the word "moderation" in politics. I have always tried to go back to the sources to see what it means.
I was gratified to read the other day—I came across it entirely by accident—some words by William Hazlitt, the best journalist who ever sat in the Gallery of the House of Commons, who looked down on these matters and studied them with great care. Let me quote what he said about moderates:
An affected moderation in politics is (nine times out of ten) a cloak for want of principle.
Some of our difficulties can be traced back to that kind of effect.
I hope that none of us will talk in terms of moderates or extremists. I do not believe that is the proper way to approach these matters. The proper approach is to see whether there is some facility that can be provided which does not infringe in any way the rights and independence of trade unions. That is the basis on which the Government are studying the matter. I think that we are dealing with the matter properly, and we shall report to the House after we have carried out the study. I think that the


Government should abide by the Standing Orders and the rules of the House—namely, to make our declarations in Committee and then report according to the proper customs and traditions of the House.

Mr. Sandelson: My right hon. Friend has quoted Hazlitt on moderation. There is not one of us who does not see in my right hon. Friend a very considerable democrat. Would he like to give us his views on extremism and what he would define as an extremist?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend tempts me to go further into the matter. Most of the great reforms in history have been carried through by people who originally were extremists. They were extremists when they started in a minority of one, they had to convert others, and then they became a little less extreme. That is how the world goes. I brought in the quotation from Hazlitt only because I believe that the word "moderates" has been used in a manner which has debased the currency of our politics. I have tried to put the matter right by insisting that the dictionary term should be used in a more sensible manner.
I was saying that the House should deal with this matter according to its traditions and not by the method which the right hon. Member for Lowestoft and his Conservative colleagues have sought to advance—namely, by the interpolation of this debate in the normal proceedings of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Gentleman, it is wise to remind the House of what Mr. Speaker said earlier. It is not in order to refer to the debate in Standing Committee, nor is it in order to put forward an extended argument for legislation.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I am sorry that I canot compliment the Secretary of State on one of his best performances. I have certainly heard him on other occasions in better form. He spent the first 15 minutes arguing whether there should be a debate at all, and something like 10 of the last 15 minutes on matters which had nothing to do with the point at issue.
The Liberal Party is in favour of the State encouraging unions—I stress "encouraging"—to have postal ballots for officers. I hope that the Secretary of State also read my speech, which simply supported the view that I am expressing now.
My party would support any move by the Government which enabled the cost of the postage involved in such elections to be borne by the State. But I would envisage the State bearing only the cost of postage not the whole cost of the ballot. I do not advocate that the printing of ballot papers should be part of the State cost. That should be properly borne by a trade union, as it is at the present time.
I do not, however, take the view that it should be mandatory upon a union to have a postal ballot. I would be totally opposed to any suggestion that a union must have a postal ballot. In my view it is for each union to decide for itself whether it would be in its interests to take advantage of any facility that the Government were able to put at its disposal. I think that this is the view that has been expressed from the Opposition Front Bench this afternoon. The rules prevent me from referring to what happens in other places, so I cannot comment on any change of atitude that may have occurred between one place and the other.
As I understand the Opposition view this afternoon, it is that postal balloting should not be mandatory on unions. Neither I nor my party would be prepared to support a suggestion that each trade union must have a postal ballot—provided always that, when a union determines whether or not to have a postal ballot, that decision is taken legally and democratically.
I see no reason for this House to be concerned with anything which may be done illegally by a union or by a union official. Recent events have proved quite conclusively that the courts have the power to deal with that situation already, and that no further action by this House is necessary. It would be ridiculous and ill-founded for this House to assume that all that is needed is to have postal ballots in unions and then all will be well with industrial relations and trade union activity.
There is no guarantee that postal ballots will lead to a greater number of people voting. An examination, for example, of the experience of the National Union of Seamen would not seem necessarily to prove that postal ballots mean more people voting in elections. What we are trying to discuss this afternoon is much more fundamental, and the sooner this House gets down to the real issue, instead of shadow boxing, the better for it we shall be.
What we are really discussing is how to ensure that trade union leaders properly project the views of their members, and how to ensure that power is where it should be, in the hands of Parliament, elected by the people—albeit by a crazy, out-dated electoral system—rather than, as it appears to be at present, in the hands of bodies outside this House. That really is the issue we are all trying to debate, but in a shadow-boxing way, instead of getting down to the real issue. If we can get down to the issue of where power is, and where it should be, then we get down to the very basis and survival of democracy itself.
I do not believe that we can effect the change that is required and desired by taking on the unions, or by taking on onyone else—in other words, having a fight with them or legislating against them. I do not believe that that would achieve anything. Equally, I do not believe that merely by insisting on postal ballots we would effect the change that I suspect we are all trying to effect. I do not believe that we would effect that change in the country, or in Parliament, or in the unions.
The change we are seeking to effect is to ensure that trade union leaders reflect the views of their members. I believe that, for example, there should be ballots for trade union officers on each factory floor, in working hours. In my view, that would ensure a much higher representative vote even than the introduction of a postal ballot. Workers should vote at their place of work, according to the union to which they belong, in whatever election is taking place. Employers should provide time for that kind of vote to take place on the factory floor.
We need to design some sort of industrial system of worker participation in industry that ensures that workers have

the power, rather than trade union bosses. There is much to be said for plant bargaining as opposed to national bargaining, certainly in the sphere of private industry, though again that can come about and be effective only when we have restructured the whole democratic process of industry itself—when workers and management can work together for their mutual good. This debate is nibbling at the real issue. It is not taking the bit between its teeth. It is not grasping the nettle.
One thing is abundantly clear to any Member who mixes with his constituents, particularly in the industrial parts of this country. It is that the workers of this country do not want strikes. They are fed up with strikes. The sooner trade union leaders get this message the better it will be. If trade union leaders were more representative of the views of their members they would get that message.
I had telephone calls last week, as the Secretary of State knows, from members of the NUR, telling me that they were not prepared to take part in a strike today, even if one had been called. I agree that they represent only a very minute part of the NUR in numbers, but nevertheless I believe that the workers of this country are genuinely seeking to evolve a better way of solving industrial problems than the method of striking.
What we are anxious to do is to devise a system which makes sure that the trade union leaders of this country get that message, and to try to evolve methods that will do away with strike action. The question whether there should be postal ballots in unions, whether this might be a good thing, is really not in itself the issue before us. The issue is how to devise a system to make sure that trade union leaders properly reflect the views of union members, rather than their own particular views or the views of a very small number of union members, whether it is the national executive or any other group.
I believe that the whole basis of our democratic structure should be reviewed; how candidates are selected for elections; our whole crazy electoral system; how Parliament works; worker participation in industry; and devolution of power. These are all parts of the same problem. It is part of the same cancer which is


eating away at democracy itself, and any democrat, whatever his or her political persuasion, should be deeply concerned about the situation facing the country and the whole basis of our democratic structure.
My Liberal colleagues and I want to see a radical reform of the system—not one dealing with postal ballots in unions as an issue in itself but a radical reform of the whole system. If this Government wish to uphold and to prove their belief in the maintenance of democracy, they will turn their attention to these matters urgently.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Evans: In addressing the House on this subject, those of us who served on the Standing Committee dealing with this matter are in considerable difficulty. As the House is aware, we have had a lengthy debate on the subject, so much so that it is almost imposible to say anything which is new.
As the outset of my remarks, in the best traditions of this House, I have to declare an interest, in that I am a Member sponsored by the AUEW. Let us be frank with each other. This debate is about the AUEW alone, despite anything to the contrary said by Opposition Members. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) could not answer when I asked him how many national trade unions elected all their officials. The answer is simple. It is done by no other union than the AUEW, and it is about this that we are talking in this debate. But again I am in considerable difficulty because, unfortunately, I cannot prove that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft spent the first hour of the proceedings in Standing Committee berating the AUEW about its procedures. But there is no doubt what we are discussing today, and we all realise why. It is because of the events which occurred in the national committee of my union.
I wish to make it clear that I am one of the few in this House with some experience of conducting ballots at branch level. For five years I was a branch teller of the AUEW. One of our greatest problems was to get our members to attend branch meetings in order to vote. If we succeeded in getting a 15 per cent. vote, we reckoned to have the support

of 100 per cent. of those members who had turned out to attend the meeting.
There are a number of reasons why trade union members do not attend branch meetings. We see increasingly the system whereby the employer deducts union subscriptions at source from a man's pay. For many years there has been a movement of population away from urban areas where branches held their meetings in pubs and clubs. There is the problem of shift work, which is widespread.
One of the current arguments on all sides in the AUEW—not simply the extremist Left or the moderate Right—is how to conduct our affairs. Many of us in the union have always felt the branch to be the cornerstone of the union and of its policy making and philosophy. Others have felt that, because of the events which have occurred in past years, we should shift the rôle of the branch to the workshop floor. It is deeply divisive arguments of this kind which have been troubling my union colleagues for a number of years.
Only recently we changed the system to one of balloting by post. It is very interesting to hear the Opposition insisting that they will not force unions to have ballots. Why, then, do they get their bowels into such tremendous uproar? It is not because the AUEW sought to abandon ballots. It is simply because it sought to change the method of voting. It would still leave the power in the hands of its members. I repeat that it is the only major trade union which elects all its officers. We simply decided to go for voting at branch level, and our decision was dictated by reasons of cost.
I support the general principle of the Government making finance available to the trade union movement to conduct ballots, but whatever method is adopted it must be decided in consultation with the unions. They must decide whether to take advantage of Government assistance. Also, it must be left to the unions to decide whether to have postal ballots in the first instance or whether to change their methods.
It ill-becomes the Opposition to get themselves into a tremendous uproar simply because the AUEW sought to change its method. I repeat that there was no attempt to do away with the


ballot. The union simply wanted to change the method of voting.
The right hon. Gentleman and the how Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) have made a great deal of play with proposals for voting at work and the fact that trade unionists should have a right to vote for their officers at the point of contact—the place of work itself.
It is all very well for right hon. and hon. Members to state general principles with which everyone can agree, but what about an industry like shipbuilding and ship repairing, where there is a multiplicity of trade unions? An employer in that industry would spend more time assisting the trade union movement to conduct ballots than he would building or repairing ships, bearing in mind that there are between 15 and 20 unions involved. What about a union like ACAT, with members spread up and down the country on different building sites? How would it operate?
It is easy to state broad principles and to make flowing speeches. Men and women on the factory floor are attempting to carry out their daily work, their political work and their trade union work. In many instances they work in the best interests of the people. They do not ask Parliament to intervene in their affairs. They look to Parliament at times for guidance, of course, but the general principle is that over the years the trade union movement has had to defend itself from attacks by this place. For that reason it is not surprising that the movement views with great suspicion any suggestion coming from the Opposition.
It may be out of order to say so, but I suggest that this debate is a complete waste of parliamentary time. There are far more important issues which we could be debating. We should not be spending time today discussing this ridiculous motion.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. David Madel: I am sure that the House was interested to hear the middle part of the speech by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), because he pointed to some of the practical difficulties in adopting a postal ballot system in certain of our trade unions. That was really the object of the Opposition in initiating this debate.

It gives the House a chance to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the different methods. We were hoping for the assistance of Government supporters such as the hon. Member for Newton, who have experience in these matters.
I do not see anything wrong in discussing general principles in this House from time to time. We spend enough time as it is on the nitty-gritty of clauses in legislation, so much so that the whole place is almost collapsing under the weight of legislation currently going through the House. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Newton will agree that there is a purpose to be served by discussing general principles from time to time.
We hoped to hear from the Secretary of State how far he had got in his consultations on these matters since they were raised earlier this year. On 17th March, my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) asked the Secretary of State whether he would introduce legislation to provide for free postal communications to be made available for union elections. In reply, the Secretary of State said that the matter was currently being considered. On 21st May, the Prime Minister said that he was in favour of postal ballots. Therefore, we looked for some indication from the Government about how their consultations with the unions were progressing. There has been public concern about the way that ballots are organised, and the Government would be taking that public concern on board if they could spell out more than they have so far how their consultations were progressing.
There is nothing new in the general debate on and interest in union elections and associated topics. In paragraph 632 of the Report of the Donovan Commission we find:
The low polls typical of union elections are an unsatisfactory feature of union life.
I do not think that anyone in the House will dissent from that comment. We are trying to think of ways whereby each trade unionist will have a better opportunity to take part in his or her union elections. As my right hon. Friend said, the Opposition want to go a little further, after consultation, and to see whether something can be done to assist candidates for appointments in unions to be


able to get across more clearly to those whose votes they seek those matters of which they are or are not in favour.
Conservative Members accept that it is not easy to get a high turnout in union elections. I refer to paragraph 633 of the Donovan Report, which underlines our point when it says, that a constantly changing membership is one of the main reasons for a low poll in union elections. The question we should ask ourselves is: if we adopt or make available this system whereby unions can claim costs for postal ballots from the Government, will it result in an increase in the total number of people voting in elections? The Opposition believe that it probably will. That is why we think we should pursue this matter in greater detail. I accept straight away that there is difficulty over the cost. The cost of a postal ballot sometimes deters a trade union from introducing a postal ballot. The Donovan Report is very succinct about this matter when, in paragraph 635, it says:
Unions considering introducing a postal vote might think that the cost is justifiable only when the election is for senior posts, or where there is some reason to believe that perseverance with postal voting will progressively increase the polls".
The words "perseverance with postal voting" are very apt, because it is only by perseverance that one will be able to get a higher turnout for union elections.
The Secretary of State for Employment mentioned the cost factor, and mention was also made of the estimate that appeared in the Economist of 24th May which said:
Suppose all unions held a postal ballot every 12 months and all members voted … then the second-class postage cost would be £1·1 million. But the net resource cost would probably be under £100,000 (since it will be hardly necessary to open new post offices or employ extra postmen)".
We look to the Secretary of State for Employment to tell us whether those figures are right, or whether his mathematicians and statisticians have come up with anything different. If we could have had more detailed figures from the Minister it would have added to our debate.
There is a need, as the Donovan Report has said, for perseverance with regard to postal ballots. I can envisage that a union having tried this system for two years might find the cost enormous and

that that may be a sufficient deterrent for the union to drop the scheme. It is for that reason that we believe Government money should be made available for such arrangements.
The hon. Member for Newton mentioned the question of voting at the work place. Time off for union activities and facilities for union officials and trade union meetings during work time are all bound up with some of the aspects which have already been discussed—and some which have not—of the Employment Protection Bill, which I know we cannot go into in detail now.
Conservatives want to stress that they have never said that there should be a compulsory postal balloting system. We accept that, very often, the right place to vote will be at the work place. However, when people are working shifts, and there are a number of unions within certain industries, there are practical difficulties which cannot necessarily be overcome by a postal ballot. Moreover, there is the further difficulty that if we have voting at the work place and there is a 24-hour shift system in operation, we do not expect the union easily to be able to provide people to—if I may use a colloquialism—"man the polling stations" throughout the whole of that time. Therefore, there could be a partial postal ballot by those working certain shifts, whilst others could vote at the place of work. I am not saying that that method is perfect, but it may have to be considered.
The whole object of our debate is to try to get these practical difficulties brought out into the open and properly considered. We are not overdramatising the case. We are not saying that there is tremendous malpractice throughout the British trade union movement. We agree with The Times editorial of 19th May, which says:
British unions have been more free from scandal than many others, but there are disturbing reports from time to time of faked elections. It is essential for the good name of British trade unionism that there should be a lively awareness of this danger.
I emphasise the words "from time to time". We are not saying that malpractices are rampant; they are not. We are merely saying that if we had a postal ballot system it would increase interest and remove a great deal of the doubt


or suspicion that arises from time to time.
The trade union movement is interested in discussing this matter with the Government. An article in the Observer of 25th May says:
The General Workers' general secretary, Mr. David Basnett, says carefully that if the Government wants to talk about postal ballots, the union will listen, though without enthusiasm.
We are entitled to say that the TUC is never backward in coming forward with ideas about the way in which the Government could improve matters, or how we could improve many facets of our national life. Here is a case where the House of Commons is making a suggestion—not giving an order—that the adoption of postal ballots, in certain circumstances, and giving unions right to claim the money back from the Government would be a good thing for British trade unionism. In no sense is our motion an order to the British trade union movement. It is a suggestion. From time to time it is the duty of Parliament to make suggestions to the TUC just as it is inevitably the duty of the TUC to make suggestions to Parliament.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: I speak as an appointed union official of many years' standing. I was appointed by a national executive council which itself was elected at an annual conference of delegates directly elected from their branches. My appointment was subject to the ratification of that conference. I think that my brother officers and I in the Post Office Engineering Union are living examples of the virtues of that system.
Having declared my interest, I listened with astonishment to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) advocating the democratic nature of postal ballots. The thought immediately came to me: was he adopted as the Conservative candidate for Lowestoft as a result of a postal ballot? I doubt it. My guess is that he was adopted in competition with other candidates at a convened meeting. I asked myself: was the right hon. Gentleman, in advocating the democratic basis of postal ballots, elected to Parliament by a postal ballot of all his constituents? I doubt it. I have reason to believe that only those who, by virtue of occupation, could not

be present in the constituency, or those who were too disabled to attend the polling station, voted in a postal ballot in that election.
I went further, and asked myself: was the right hon. Member speaking in this debate by virtue of a decision of the British people? No; he was speaking by virtue of the fact that he had been selected or nominated to speak on behalf of Conservative Members, by the leader of the party who, herself, had been appointed by an indirect method of election. Thinking of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman came to be speaking this afternoon, I could only conclude that if postal ballots were for the trade union movement, they were not for the Conservative Party.
It has always been my view, as a union official, that the problems that those of us in the trade union movement present to the politicians arise out of the democratic nature of the trade union movement. These are problems about pressure of pay, disputes—including demarcation disputes—and protective practices. All these matters press upon us because of pressure from rank and file members. Therefore, it is because of the democracy of the trade union movement that we face difficulties. If we were trade union "bosses"—if we had the power that people attribute to us—we could more easily give Labour Governments, and other Governments, copper-bottomed guarantees. Our problem, as leaders, is that we lead truly democratic organisations and have to win consent from the rank and file before we can carry them with us.
I think that each union should be free to choose the method of election, nomination or selection most suitable to its circumstances. The British trade union movement has within it a great variety of circumstances, institutions and conditions. It would be impossible to lay down guidelines to suit them all. That is why the Industrial Relations Act crumbled from the start. It is essential that each union should be allowed to pursue the method of recruitment that it wishes.
It seems odd that the Conservative Party, if it is pressing for an extension of direct election, should be pressing for a method of trade union control which, over


the years, has produced greater militancy than otherwise. The Opposition must face this situation.
I am a moderate. I do not know whether or not Hazlitt, to whom my right hon. Friend referred, is a member of the NUJ. As a moderate, I appreciate that it is much easier for a union official to contain the pressures put upon him at a particular time by his members if he is not subject to election within two weeks. If the Opposition want the trade union movement to become more responsive to the pressures from the rank and tile from week to week, they must continue to campaign for the abandonment of representative democracy and methods of indirect election within the trade union movement and go along the road that they have chosen this afternoon.
I refused to put my name to the motion which supported the Government's giving money to unions to assist with postal balloting. If a union wants to pursue that course, so be it. However, I refused to put my name to the motion because there are many better ways in which unions can use money at this time.
As a union education officer, I used to teach students how trade union democracy could be improved. One fundamental truth that I tried to drum home was that it was no use giving people the right to vote if they did not know what they were voting for. In order to have a democratic institution there must be availability of information and discussion before the vote is cast—unless the Opposition are advocating a pure machine-type system of election.
I believe that there is a great need for the development of trade union education and the improvement of research facilities. The general level of communication within unions is unadequate. In short, I believe that there is still a case, put by the Labour Government between 1969 and 1970, for a trade union development fund to make it possible for unions to improve the general effectiveness of their organisations. I certainly want the Government to bring out their own ideas on this subject at some time and reexamine them. I am certain that the payment of money—whether £500,000 or £1 million—for postal ballots would fall in priority below grants for research, educa-

tion, and the improvement of communications. I certainly do not want the Government to take a decision on giving money for postal ballot purposes in isolation, without considering alternative uses to which the money could he put to improve the effectiveness of trade union organisations. I believe that the Opposition ought to get off that tack and think more seriously about the way in which we can improve industrial relations.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: In his opening speech this afternoon the Secretary of State clearly intended to try to be impartial. I believe that he had come to the House determined to neither say "Yes" nor "No" to the idea of postal ballots. But the fence on which he was trying to sit—no doubt a little surprised at finding his presence upon it—eventually collapsed under his weight, since, by the time that he sat down, he gave the clear impression that if there were a race to bring in union postal ballots he would be content to be the last, or not to cross the finishing line.
No Member of this House is better able to destroy an idea with faint praise than is the Secretary of State. Indeed, when he was quoting from Hazlitt, I could not help recalling the remaining words of Pope's famous comment upon Addison's attitude, which seemed so close to the right hon. Gentleman's attitude this afternoon:
Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer".
The Secretary of State was really cautioning the House upon three points. The first was that as a House of Commons we should be chary about interfering in the internal affairs of trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman quoted at length from the ILO Conventions. That was an unreal attitude. We are not discussing the powers of some minor and irrelevant independent body like a village amateur dramatic society; we are discussing the powers of one of the great estates of the realm. The trade union movement, the great trade unions that make up that movement and the individual leaders who lead those unions have, individually and collectively over the last six years, decisively intervened in the


economic and political affairs of this country. In June 1969 they broke the will of the previous Labour Government. In February 1974 they brought about the defeat of the Conservative Government. Over the last 18 months they have virtually determined the disastrous economic policy of this Government. Therefore, it seems to me that, when an estate of the realm has such influence and authority in our affairs, it is sensible that we, another estate of the realm, should take more than just a passing interest in their electoral procedures.

Mr. Foot: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that we should abrogate our signature to the ILO Convention?

Mr. Baker: No. I am pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman must try to live a little closer to the real world. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made the same point. The institutions in our society have not yet recognised that there has been a significant shift of power. If we need any evidence of a decisive shift away from this House we have only to look at the events of this week. Our economic affairs will not be debated in this House. They were discussed this morning at Transport House, they will be discussed later in the week at No. 10, and probably over the weekend at Chequers with the CBI and TUC. I thought for a moment that we were back in 1972 and 1973. It all seemed to have a rather familiar ring. But the point which I make is that power has shifted, and shifted significantly.
Second, the Secretary of State, somewhat elliptically, as I said, warned the House against seeking the solution of industrial relations problems by invoking the due processes of law. I think he said that he would not wish to be sadistic in reminding the Opposition where that course leads. I must remind him that if, on the other hand, the due processes of law were not available in our country, about 70,000 Welsh engineers would have been denied their rights—their rights would have been abrogated. Only by recourse to our courts of law were the rights of those engineers reasserted over a piece of quite unacceptable electoral malpractice. I believe, therefore, that there is limited scope for the law in these matters.
The third matter upon which the Secretary of State touched, after it had been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), was the question of cost. Rightly, it was the first question dealt with, but the Secretary of State dismissed it because he realised that he was not on to a good point. It is fitting, perhaps, that a member of a Government whose epitaph when it is eventually inscribed on their tombstones will be "We were the last of the big spenders" should be chary about that, though it seems strange that a Secretary of State who is ready to find thousands of millions of pounds to nationalise the aircraft industry, shipbuilding and the docks should strain at the gnat of a few coppers to improve democracy. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, that his attempt to be even-handed was not successful, and his arguments were not convincing.
In short, the case for allowing unions to conduct postal ballots if they wish, and for money to be found from the Exchequer for that purpose, rests simply on the desire to encourage greater participation by the members of unions in union affairs. I cannot understand why so many hon. Members on the Government side fight shy of that. For our part, we should like to take it even further. I should like time to be made available in working hours and premises to be made available in the factory or work place for meetings to be held, as already happens in some companies and some industries. If that were done, it would be far better to work along those lines than merely to go through the business of postal balloting.
I agree that the introduction of trade union postal balloting would be no panacea, but at least it would provide opportunities for more to participate. The figures show that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Model) pointed out. When it was tried in the engineering union, the numbers participating in voting doubled, and in some cases, quadrupled. This must be good for democracy.
It is good also for the moderate voice to be heard. I know that the Secretary of State is disdainful of this, and has been throughout his political career, but I should prefer to hear the moderate voice


rather than the shrill and strident voice, and it seems to me that greater participation would produce that result. I wish to see the important affairs of this great estate of the realm handled in a more free and more open way, involving many thousands of trade unionists in its procedures instead of having them decided by a handful of men in a smoke-filled room.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I cannot allow to pass without comment the procedural morass into which the Opposition have put themselves, since this subject will be debated again very shortly on the Report stage of a Bill.
It is touching that the Opposition should show such concern for democracy. I wish they would direct that concern to less politically controversial and opportunist causes. They might, for example, look at what goes on in the Palace of Westminster, where part of the legislative process is handled by people not elected but appointed, or who have inherited their position.
Instead of directing their concern for democracy to the affairs of the engineers, the plumbers, the electricians and the lorry drivers, the Opposition would do well to elevate their eyes to somewhat higher planes and look at what goes on here. They might think that what is good enough for the vast mass of working people should apply also to the legislative process, and show some enthusiasm for advocating the replacement of the Upper House with some sort of democratically elected assembly, or even, if they thought that that might take power from this House, advocate its complete eradication. I think that that would be more to their credit.
A cross on a piece of paper, which is what the Opposition are talking about in principle, is not the beginning and end of democracy. Trade union branches have an important part to play, and this should be recognised. The Opposition ought to acknowledge that if the postal ballot system were introduced widely the consequence would be that a lot of members who might otherwise go to their branches would stay at home, put a cross on a piece of paper, and regard that as their entire measure of involvement.
The level of participation in branch activities now is not high enough, and I am sure that postal balloting, if foisted on trade unions against their wishes or in indifference to their wishes, would not improve the level of branch participation. If the Opposition are concerned about, say, unofficial strikes, they should realise that, by and large, strikes, official or unofficial, do not start with the national officers of a large trade union. Very often, they start at branch level, on the shop floor or in the work place, wherever it is, and they then go through the process of receiving official approval or not, as the case may be.
Therefore, if we had an extension of postal balloting, the Opposition might well find developing a situation which, presumably, they would wholly oppose—a situation in which a tiny group of highly politically motivated men were in charge of a trade union branch because the vast majority of members stayed at home, having been satisfied with a postal vote. I should not imagine that right hon. and hon. Members opposite would be very keen on that.
The Opposition ought to clothe with some flesh the skeleton which they have raised. We want to know, for instance, whether they are putting their idea forward in the best interests of the trade union movement or in the interests of their friends. I refer here to the tiny group of politically motivated people who control the Press.
The AUEW, which has a postal ballot system, has rules about the amount of information and literature which may be circulated. If a candidate exceeds this rule, or if his friends exceed it, that candidate may be disqualified. This is done with a view to giving a balanced and fair picture upon which the voters may make their decision. I do not suppose that the Opposition would regard that as wrong. Yet if they simply put forward their idea in principle, with nothing more, what is to stop the Press running a campaign of vilification and abuse against candidates whom those who control the Press happen to dislike—perhaps a totally inaccurate campaign—while at the same time refusing to allow a decent amount of space for the opposite view to be presented?
We have had a recent example of that. One of the non-elected but appointed


people from the other place to whom I referred a few moments ago made some remarks in a newspaper which has always been devoted to the best principles of English life—the News of the World—and that newspaper would not give the trade unionists being thus abused by Lord George-Brown the right of reply. One cannot regard that as a democratic act in a democratic society.
As I say, it is conceivable that some of our newspapers would present a prejudiced and partial view of candidates at a trade union election. If, therefore we were to have a fair election process, we should have to have rules to prevent that sort of abuse. The Opposition have not mentioned that, and their failure to mention it shows that they are prepared to hand over power to the tiny group of people who own or control the British Press—and that cannot be regarded as a laudable approach to the improvement of democracy.
A number of Opposition Members have from time to time expressed surprise that I should be concerned about the level of public expenditure, the implication being that we on the Government side of the House regard public expenditure as some sort of bottomless pit, which we look at with glazed eyes, trusting that it will continue. On the contrary, we look at the priorities in public expenditure, which is not something that we can disregard.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) produced the figure of £5 million some time ago and the figure of £1½ million today. He is not terribly good at figures. He has got himself into trouble about them before. Nevertheless, we recognise that the sum would be several millions of pounds.
I do not object to the principle of postal ballots where unions can afford them and elect to have them. But the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) looked a little askance at the idea of spending money on unions. The Conservatives had better get the matter sorted out among themselves. The hon. Gentleman had grave reservations about such a proposal.
I, too, have grave reservations, but that is because I think that there are much more urgent priorities for public expenditure. For example, in my constitu-

ency I have difficulty in getting telephones installed for the disabled, while the Bradford Metropolitan District Council—Tory controlled, unfortunately—is cutting down the capitation fee in order to save about £200,000. The result is that local children will have fewer books and less and poorer quality paper. The right hon. Gentleman's figures of £1½ million or £5 million make a situation such as that in my constituency an even more startling comparison. But that is the grim reality. We cannot turn a blind eye to it and say that only a small amount would be involved in assisting unions with postal balloting. The expenditure would be relatively high, in fact, and in the present economic situation we should examine such proposals very carefully.
We could not possibly accept that the money should be handed over without some sort of supervision, but, in the present state of industrial relations, if even the present Government stated that a supervisory board would have to certify that the balloting system was satisfactory and that it would have power to remove such certification, the unions could be forgiven if they said "This is harking back to the old Industrial Relations Act, to the days when the Government wanted to interfere with our processes for reasons of their own." We are only a few months away from the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act—a measure which caused more days to be lost in strike action than in any year between 1926 and 1973—so it is certainly not the time to introduce legislation such as is suggested today, even if it were felt on the whole to be desirable.
It is all very well for the Opposition to talk about occasional misdemeanours in union voting. An editorial in The Times has been mentioned, and it is worth pointing out that postal ballots lend themselves much more easily to corruption than do secret ballots. If one is going to corrupt a person in order to get his vote, one can see that payment is made if it is a postal ballot. One can ensure that the vote is put in the correct place. But where it is a secret ballot, one can only attempt to get the vote. One cannot necessarily get value for money. This aspect should be borne in mind. I am not saying that there is corruption in postal balloting. I am simply saying that there is a possibility.
We accept that, in principle, postal voting can, in certain circumstances, be beneficial, providing the unions are left alone to make their own decisions about it, without Government interference. I think that trade unionists will view the debate with a degree of disdain, which it deserves, coming as it does from the Conservative and Liberal Parties. The Liberal Party talks about electoral reform but elects its leadership from among a tiny handful of political cronies, while the Conservative Party does not use a postal ballot to elect its leader but leaves it to the parliamentary branch. The Opposition do not even use postal balloting for the selection of their candidates. It far better to impress the trade union movement by giving it an example to follow than by political opportunism, which this motion represents.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: The suspicion and hostility with which the debate has been greeted are a matter of great sadness, because it means that there is a complete misunderstanding of the spirit in which the motion has been put forward. It seemed that the Secretary of State was determined to raise every red herring rather than address himself to what had been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), and I think that the fading star of the Left-wing firmament has turned into a damp squib.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying "Nothing I say should be taken as indicating that I have views on any subject whatever or, if I have, that I am conceivably going to be persuaded to disclose what they are". Perhaps I may follow the couplet cited by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) when the right hon. Gentleman was talking—when he could prevail upon himself to do so about the question of postal ballots,
Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike, Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike".
The pathology with which the right hon. Gentleman faced this debate was quite remarkable. It was wholly unnecessary, because the debate was stimulated by a motion which was originally supported by Labour Members. That clearly indicated the genuine concern among Labour Members about the procedures of

election in trade unions and a genuine desire to assist those procedures by the use of postal balloting.
There is room for argument about the way in which this could be done. Indeed, the purpose of the debate is not to put a cut-and-dried scheme but to suggest that there is genuine need for debate about the precise way in which an idea which found so much support from Labour Members earlier might be implemented. Instead of telling us the ways in which the Government think the difficulties could be surmounted, the right hon. Gentleman insulted the House first by trying to avoid dealing with the subject at all and then falling back on bogus arguments.
The right hon. Gentleman complained about the matter being debated at all. He seemed to suggest that it was in some sense improper to have the debate. Yet my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft had put forward a clear and succinct argument about what was being proposed without in any way falling foul of the Chair. Having, during the first half of his speech, criticised the Opposition for daring to raise the subject, which he thought should have been left for another time or another place, the Secretary of State spent the second half talking about the subject in only a cursory and inaccurate way.
The right hon. Gentleman compared the suggestion that there should be assistance for balloting for trade union officers with the strike ballots introduced under the Industrial Relations Act. We, of course, realise that, when talking about a strike ballot, we are in a situation in which the average union member is presented with a choice between loyalty to his union leadership, which is calling for a strike, and the calls of, say, the media or—if one likes—of the men of moderation. In that situation it was hardly surprising—indeed, it was not surprising—that the vote should have gone as it did.
But this is a very different situation and is not at all analogous. The situation that we are talking about is one in which in a free election the trade union member himself has to consider whom he wishes to have, a choice from within his own ranks. To compare that in any way with a strike ballot is a deliberate


attempt to draw a red herring across the trail rather than to give serious consideration to what has been suggested.

Mr. Foot: What I was seeking to say was that it seemed to be a popular idea that strike ballots might be a way in which to make a strike more difficult, but when it was looked into and applied it was found that the popular impression was mistaken. All I was saying—and it is analogous only in this sense—was that in the same way the popular impression that postal ballots might be a kind of panacea for this problem could be mistaken—if that popular impression prevails.

Mr. Brittan: The analogy is fallacious for two reasons. First, the reason that moderation did not prevail on the single test at the time of a postal ballot in relation to a strike was the reason that I have given; namely, the pull of loyalty prevailed. But that does not arise in a ballot for trade union election, because then it is a free choice between two members of a trade union each of whom is equally entitled to consideration by the members of the trade union. Secondly, the analogy does not stand because there is all the difference in the world between a ballot put at the head of the union by pistol point and a ballot freely chosen by a union and merely facilitated by any legislation that the Government choose to pass.
This was a red herring, and it was followed by a herring that was even redder, even more inedible. The ILO convention was held before the House by the right hon. Gentleman in terrorem as being the ultimate deterrent that should prevent us from even considering, let alone supporting, this dangerous and subversive idea. It was not said to be a deterrent, but it was waved before us as being a big stick that had stood for 25 or 30 years, and a whole succession of holders of the office of Secretary of State for Employment were read out in sonorous tones to prevent us from even contemplating the idea.
Yet I do not believe for a moment that there is anything in the ILO convention that in any way prevents or discourages the idea of postal ballots in trade union elections. It is certainly possible to construct a mandatory, compulsory

method of postal ballots to be enforced with pains and penalties that the medieval monarchs themselves would not dare to impose, and so infringe the ILO convention. The only problem is that such a scheme infringing the ILO convention would bear not a shred of resemblance to anything suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft.
What my right hon. Friend suggested was simply that if unions of their own free will chose to hold postal ballots, they should be given financial assistance for doing so. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman, whom I believe we may have the privilege of hearing a second time in the debate, to quote chapter and verse of the ILO convention provision that would stand in the way not of some imaginary scheme but of the ideas actually put forward by my right hon. Friend. There is none.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of interference that would restrict the rights of the unions. It is not interference that would restrict the rights of the unions. They do not have to have a postal ballot if they do not want it, and they do not have to take the money; they are merely offered the money in certain circumstances. The ILO convention is not something of which we should be scared, because we have allowed it to stand for a long time, and it has nothing to do with this debate.
I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's weekend reading, which I hope he found very salutary and an assistance in the discharge of his onerous duties. It turned out to be the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). Whether one agrees or disagrees with that speech and whether or not my right hon. Friend has proposed that there should be compulsory postal ballots for trade union elections, one thing is quite clear, and it is that the proposal for compulsory postal ballots which was extracted from that speech, whether it was found there or not, and which was presented as being a big stick with which to beat the Opposition is certainly not the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, who leads for the Opposition in the debate today. Therefore, yet again that was a monstrous irrelevancy put forward solely for the purpose of avoiding the issue.

Mr. Foot: Is it improper for me to quote weekend speeches by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), particularly when he is referring to the subject of this debate? Is that monstrous?

Mr. Brittan: The objection to the quotation was not that it was improper but that it was irrelevant. That is a very different objection. The right hon. Gentleman heard every word that my right hon. Friend said today and yet chose to ignore his proposal and instead set up the Aunt Sally of the proposal made in a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester.

Mr. Foot: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) made a proposal for legislation?

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is determined to avoid the debate by seeking to draw Opposition Members into something which they know would not be permitted. My right hon. Friend found it perfectly possible to deal with the subject in a constructive way without falling foul of any prohibition by the Chair.
I am surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman, whom I learned in my infancy to regard as a lion in debate and one not afraid to face the issues, sheltering behind exaggerated fears about imaginary parliamentary rules when those responsible for the conduct of debate according to those rules have found it possible to allow the subject matter to be canvassed with a much greater degree of liberality than the right hon. Gentleman finds possible to tolerate. It does not do him justice for him to seek to shelter in this timid way. He has been in the House a great deal longer than I have, and I have always hoped that I would hear from him candid debate rather than a sheltering behind artificial rules.
I do not wish to detain the House much longer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] What I have said appears to have struck home. The real reason for the objection to what has been said on this side of the House has nothing to do with any of the merits of the arguments of my right hon. Friend. There is room for debate as to whether this should be a first priority in public expenditure, and there is room for argument as to whether the variety of

union rules permits a general application of the principle of postal ballots.
But there is no room for the fears of hon. Members opposite, because the scheme that has been suggested and canvassed is wholly voluntary and it is entirely open to any union to reject it if it does not like it. The reason for their hostility, suspicion and fear is that Labour Members suspect the motives of those who put forward the scheme.
I appreciate that the history of the trade union movement and the legislation relating to it have been fiercely controversial, but I hoped, and I still hope, that the fact that the Opposition had put forward for discussion a motion closely following the lines of a proposal put forward wholly by Labour Members would enable us to have a debate in which what was certainly intended as a constructive proposal could be treated in that sense.
It is precisely for that reason, as my right hon. Friend said, that we are not seeking to divide the House and to form up on party lines. We do not seek to put forward proposals for legislation. We were hoping that the practical difficulties, advantages and disadvantages, of this suggestion might be hammered out in a non-controversial way so that if at some future time it commended itself to the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in a less combative mood, it would have been possible for the ground to have been cleared in a constructive way.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: I do not so much suspect the motives of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and his colleagues in putting forward this motion as I suspect their competence in trade union affairs and their lack of knowledge in industrial relations matters. The Secretary of State referred to the late Lord Monckton. I was reading the other day that the grand old master, Sir Winston Churchill, just before the Conservatives came into power in 1951, realised that he had very few people in the Tory leadership who knew anything at all about industrial relations. The more things change the more they seem to remain the same.
With all respect to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), I felt that


we could have expected a great deal more from him. His concluding remarks gave the lie to what he said. He was really whistling in the dark, looking for something new to say about industrial relations. If this has been a debate about the general principle the one thing that has been clear is that we have been stumbling over the practicalities of the problem of introducing postal ballots for trade union appointments. I favour postal ballots as a system. But I am in no doubt that we cannot thrust postal ballots down the throats of trade unions and their members.
It has been made clear that not all trade union posts are elective. The majority of trade union officers, and I was one, are appointed to posts. If we are talking about introducing postal ballots, are we saying that it should be done from top to bottom? Are we talking of postal ballots for the members of union national executive committees as well as regional committees, branch or district committees? I do not put that forward as an attempt to defeat the principle of postal ballots but to point out how complicated a procedure it could be.
Moreover, it seems that we are not really debating who pays for the 5½p stamp for the postal vote. We are discussing the state of democracy in this country. There is no doubt that the trade unions exercise a considerable influence over our everyday lives. In some ways the decisions taken by the CBI and the TUC often transcend the importance of any debates we have in this place. We might say that the general secretaries of some unions are more important than individual Cabinet Ministers, and the same might be said of the chairmen of some companies, who are more often in the shade away from the public eye.
It seems that only Parliament operates in the glass bowl where all our proceedings are open to public gaze. The decisions taken by trade union leaders and, to a much greater extent, by industrialists are frequently taken behind closed doors. Even if the trade unions decided en bloc to introduce postal ballots, do we really feel that this would involve the great mass of men and women who are members of trade unions?
We have just come through a unique referendum. It is a tribute to the electors that in that referendum, which was not compulsory, two in every three people voted. The fact remains, however, that one in every three did not.

Mr. Cyril Smith: That is better than 92 out of 100.

Mr. Craigen: The fact that it was a complex issue does not obscure the fact that a third of the electorate did not take part in the referendum.
If resources are required they should be made available to those trade unions that wish to hold postal ballots. Pillar-box democracy is not enough. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft made an interesting observation when he said that no one expects a great number of people to turn up at branch meetings. What kind of democracy is it when people are not prepared to turn up at the point of decision-making when that point is close to them? Until trade unionists or electors realise that they have responsibilities as well as rights in this concept of participation, legislation will not produce any great effect.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). I want to return to some of his points a little later. One of the things which have interested me this afternoon has been the way in which a group of Labour Members who are not noted for their concern over public expenditure and the effect of grossly inflated public expenditure on our affairs have wheeled out the comparatively small sum which would be involved in conducting postal ballots as an excuse for not having them.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who cheerfully contemplates a borrowing requirement of £9 billion and calls on the Government to increase that requirement most of the time, pleads £5 million as an excuse for not taking action. The Secretary of State did exactly the same. Suddenly people who would spend money like water on objectives which they consider to be important plead comparatively small sums at the reason for not doing something which many other people consider to be most important.
I will not develop the theme of the cost for too long but I would point out that the Post Office is a national utility owned by the community. I cannot imagine that a single additional postman would need to be employed to operate postal ballots. If I may use my accountancy terms we are talking in a marginal cost way. The marginal cost of having a postal ballot would be tiny. It is an extremely spurious argument to say that public expenditure should be a criterion.
The Secretary of State, whose speeches I have admired and listened to with great interest since I came into this House, produced this argument in a most diffident way. It was a tribute to his judgment that he did so, because it is not a strong argument. I am sure that he would not want to place too much weight upon it.

Mr. Cryer: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to allocate this expenditure from cuts in defence expenditure?

Mr. Parkinson: We all appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not understand finance very well. Perhaps I could take him to one side later and talk to him about marginal costing so that he can understand the point I am making. At present many of the costs of the Post Office are fixed, and the increased cost of having a postal ballot system would be very little indeed. I am not denying that there would be some costs, but they would be tiny and are no argument of any consequence against having postal ballots if those ballots are in the national interest. This is not an attempt by us to impose something on the unions which might be against their interest, nor should the costs be decisive.
I began to be rather alarmed about the state of our trade unions when Mr. Bert Ramelson, the industrial organiser for the Communist Party, made the arrogant remark 18 months ago that the Communist Party had identified the trade unions as its sphere of influence. He went on to say that that party could float off an idea earlier in the year and, thanks to the trade unions and the block vote, by October it would be official Labour Party policy. There is no doubt that the Communist Party in Britain—and it knows that if it runs a candidate it does not have a hope of getting him

elected—has identified the trade unions as a sphere where the tiny minority of activists can have an influence out of all proportion to their number.

Mr. Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether there are more full-time Communist officers on the executives of unions where there are direct elections than in unions where officials are appointed?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not know, and I do not think that the point is particularly relevant. Mr. Ramelson has said that he identifies the trade union movement and the influence of Communists in it as a way of influencing the policies of one of our major parties. He may have been boasting—I hope he was—but the fact remains that he felt confident enough to declare that the Communist Party has identified the trade union movement as a vehicle for influencing events of one of our major parties.
I have listened to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) explaining during industrial relations debates that about 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. of the membership of the National Union of Seamen vote in leadership elections, although the ballot is kept open for six months.
These two matters together are an argument for encouraging more people to take part in union elections. I am saying not that the end result would be different but that we have identified trade union elections as having an influence far beyond the affairs of the trade union concerned. We know that a group of people who are politically motivated see trade unions as a source of power. All we are saying is that in that circumstance it is vitally important that what the leaders do represents the wishes of the majority of their members—no more than that. If that is the case, the community will have to live with it.
However, we cannot allow such an important estate of the Realm, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said, to be in the hands of politically motivated people if they are in the minority and if they use the power they gain for political ends. Let us find out, in any way open to us, whether this is the view of the majority. If it is, we must accept it. Many Conservative Members do not think that it is.
Recently two instances have led us to have increasing doubts about it. The first was the Ford strike which took place about 18 months ago. A postal ballot was held and the Ford workers decided overwhelmingly that they did not want to strike. At that point the shop stewards said that a postal ballot was the abrogation of democracy and that the only way to take a decision was to have a public meeting and a show of hands. Those shop stewards tried very hard to overrule the results of the postal ballot and to have a public show of hands, because they knew that in that situation they had a tremendous influence. I thought that I was living in a strange world in which the private ballot could be described as the abrogation of democracy and where a mass meeting at which people could be manipulated could be regarded as desirable.
The second and quite unrelated incident involved the National Union of Mineworkers. At the end of the phase 2 negotiations the executive put the vote to the members. The offer within phase 2 was accepted in April 1973. In November 1973 the leadership of the union was determined not to put the phase 3 offer to the members. The phase 3 offer was never put to the members. However, they were asked the question "Will you back your executive or side with the Government?" We know the result. The people who wanted trouble were scared of the result of the ballot. They simply did not like the prospect of having a ballot because they were not prepared to accept the result until they knew what it would be.

Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a ballot decided upon by men who have been questioned. Does the hon. Gentleman always want to choose which question is put on the ballot paper himself?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I indicate that those hon. Members who have addressed the House are taking up the time of those who still wish to speak?

Mr. Parkinson: A question was put to the members of the National Union of Mineworkers which produced a result, and the net effect was a decision by the activists never to put a question again until they could be sure of the result.

I believe that the extremist elements in certain unions are scared of the ballot. It is important to recognise the tremendous power of the trade union movement. We accept this. It is a fact. It is also a fact that the Government discuss the nation's affairs with the CBI and the TUC and from those discussions come results which are far more important than anything we may settle here. I do not approve of that, but it is a fact.
In that circumstance the way in which this important element in our society organises its affairs is of general concern. I do not want to impose legislation on the members of any union which would impose a point of view on the members of the union. We should try to find a way in which the members can express their points of view. I am not sure that at present the trade union movement is being operated in the democratic way which we should all wish to see.
I hope that the Secretary of State will speak with a little more conviction when he sums up the debate. I can understand his diffidence today. When I was a boy, we used to call an arrogant person "the great 'I am'". We could have described the Secretary of State today as "the big 'if'". He was not prepared to come down on either side, simply weaving and bobbing for the statutory half-hour. But I think that he knows that the present situation is not satisfactory, that at this critical time the Government or whoever else speaks to unions leaders should have the assurance that they are speaking with those who have the backing of their members and that they represent their views. I am not sure that under the present system they do.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. John Tomlinson: It ill-behoves the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) to criticise the Secretary of State for indecisiveness when at least he spoke about the subject that we are discussing rather than the general rôle of balloting in union affairs. We are not debating what happened in pithead ballots of the NUM or secret ballots at the Ford Motor Company, or any other of a range of issues far divorced from this subject.

Mr. Parkinson: I related those things to what I was saying, that it is important


that we use the ballot to find out what the members believe. That applies to appointments of leaders as to everything else.

Mr. Tomlinson: My point is that great emphasis has been laid by some Conservative Members on voluntarism in progress towards postal balloting. I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends go along with that. Early-Day Motion No. 492 is evidence that large numbers of Labour Members support Government encouragement for postal balloting. What we argue is that unions which have decided through their own democratic machinery on postal balloting and which are inhibited only by the cost should be indemnified by the Government——

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: Yes, if they want it.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am prepared to accept that the hon. Member wants it, but anyone who has heard the whole debate will accept that many of the points raised have ranged far wider. Some hon. Members have talked about the need to test union opinion as if we would decide the circumstances in which that testing was done.
The unanimity which exists across the House is only in the limited area of the Government using public funds to meet the cost of postal balloting where those ballots have been decided upon by the unions themselves. There is not much agreement beyond that, but that is a basis from which we can start.
We should be ill-advised to claim that limited Government support for postal balloting would bring about a tremendous change in union affairs. The AUEW feels that the cost of postal balloting inhibits it from continuing that system, although participation increased from about 8 per cent. to nearly 30 per cent. Those who support the limited nature of Early-Day Motion No. 492 would say to such a union "If you wish to continue with postal balloting, there is a legitimate role for State finance. Then the increased participation of the postal balloting system, which no one forced on you, which emerged from your democratic machinery, can be continued if the only inhibition is cost."
One cannot move on from that position to argue that postal balloting would be a counter-balance to what the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) called the shift of power to the unions when he was recounting the events of June 1969 and February 1974. I do not believe that such a shift has happened. One of the major problems with power in our society is that unions are too weak, not too strong. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and I recently saw what was happening in Germany. I think that we would agree that trade union organisation there represented far greater power, if the unions wanted to use it, than exists in this country.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman misinterprets my argument. I was not suggesting that union postal ballots would correct what I believe to have been the significant drift of power to the trade union movement. I was saying that individual unions have such considerable powers as an estate of the Realm that it is in order for us to discuss their electoral procedures.

Mr. Tomlinson: That is precisely where I disagree. This House should not debate union electoral procedures. That is a matter for the democratic procedures of the unions themselves. Where they take such a decision, we argue, they should be helped with the cost. But we are not saying how they should operate their democratic procedures. That is a matter for the autonomous, sovereign decision of each union in accordance with its own rules.
Anyone who feels that this House could make a useful contribution by laying down a standard of union ballots should try to learn the lesson of the compulsory balloting which was operated under the Industrial Relations Act. The lesson was far more dramatic than the Secretary of State said. It is not just that the National Union of Railwaymen voted militantly when there was a compulsory ballot. The most impressive thing was that non-unionists voted 2 to 1 in favour of strike action when the ballot had been carved up to get four separate results.
There is a general concern in the House about providing funds for this purpose. I hope that the Secretary of State does not associate those who signed Early-Day


Motion No. 492 with the idea of imposing on unions something which would be alien to them if they were allowed to operate their rule books freely.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The backdrop for this debate is the country's deteriorating economic situation. At a time of rapidly rising unemployment, for which the Secretary of State bears a very specific and heavy personal responsibility, there is a desperate need for wage restraint so that inflationary wage settlements do not further damage employment prospects. Although there may be views and disagreements about how this can best be achieved, there seems to be a wide unanimity of view, certainly as expressed in the weekend speeches, that it is required.
I dissent from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) in that I think that the experience of the last decade has shown that trade unions have greater power within our society than they had before. However, the last decade has also been a decade in which we have seen militancy pay time after time. It has been a period in which the moderate shop steward has often had his position undercut because the militant shop steward with his colleagues has managed to get something which has not been available to those who have behaved moderately.
With this backdrop, the character and nature of union leadership is of immense public importance, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said. We know—we saw it in the referendum—that some of the most powerful people on the union scene get it totally and utterly wrong in what they suggest is the trade union view. When, having got it wrong, they then exercise the power of the block vote at, for example, the Special Conference of the Labour Party, it is reasonable that standing outside we should be very concerned at the fact that unrepresentative minorities can and do exert such power on behalf of the wide membership.
This has been a central issue in the debate. It has been a debate about moderation and responsibility in trade union leadership. The Secretary of State made a very curious speech: he took 35 minutes to say nothing at all. He did

not seem particularly interested in moderation and responsibility, but that is nothing new, because we know from his record that extremism and irresponsibility are more his cup of tea.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us a long lecture about parliamentary procedure. I found in my experience of union meetings that those who began niggling over procedure were normally those who felt that their arguments were excessively weak, so they turned to procedural arguments to get them out of their difficulties. We saw something of this today in the Secretary of State's rambling and pedantic debating stuff about the manner of this debate.
I suppose that if a motion had been put on the Order Paper it would have been perfectly in order for the debate to have been conducted without some of the inhibitions and restrictions which you, Mr. Speaker, advised us about at the beginning of the debate. However, the object of having this debate on the Adjournment was to enable hon. Members in all parts of the House to express a view without having to be tied to being in favour of or against a particular motion and it was the most neutral way in which the Opposition could put forward this subject for our debate today.
What we are concerned about is that there should be financial assistance for those unions which themselves decide that they want to hold postal ballots for important elections. The decision about the type of ballot is for the unions themselves. This seems to be accepted in all parts of the House. The principle that we are discussing is whether the State in these circumstances, and in circumstances of rapidly rising postal charges, should not be prepared to give some assistance over the cost if the union itself decides that it wishes to hold a postal ballot.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said, we also believe that, wherever possible, opportunities should be provided for union meetings at the place of work—the place where people are—rather than at the branch meeting, which often is much more difficult for people to get to. It would be sensible for employers to make time available in which union meetings could be held on the firm's premises. When this happens now, we know that much greater participation takes place.
We know equally from the experience of the National Union of Mineworkers that ballots taken at the work place result in very high participation. That makes good sense. We are on this seeking to do what we can to encourage the greatest possible participation in these elections of people who wield great power within the community. The way in which they wield that power has very widespread effects within the community.
There has been talk about the cost. I share the astonishment of some of my colleagues at those Labour Members who bring forward the cost argument, because they are not those Members whom one normally recognises as being particularly concerned at the level of public expenditure; they are not those who go round counting the candle ends on the national scene.
Yet the cost argument is produced on this issue where the cost would be very small, I estimate, in relation to the possible advantage. The cost to the country of having an unrepresentative minority in control of one of the major unions could easily be so much more than any cost which would be involved in helping with the postal charges where the unions themselves decide to have postal ballots.
At any rate, though estimates of £1 million or perhaps of £5 million have been given, this is a paper charge. In resource costs, the Economist gave us an estimate of £100,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) said, that is a paper transaction because the Government are subsidising the loss on the Post Office anyway. Therefore, in that sense it could be argued—I am sure that some hon. Members opposite, perhaps even the Secretary of State, would argue this; it would be a good argument; it is typical of the right hon. Gentleman, I suppose—that it would be no cost of any kind because of the arrangements there are for subsidising the Post Office.
I do not think that this is an issue which can be determined purely on the issue of cost. If there is support in all parts of the House for the principle that something should be done to provide financial help for unions which themselves decide to hold postal ballots, cost should not be the decisive factor. It might even

be that somewhere in the obscurities of what the Secretary of State was saying was agreement with that point of view, because he did not appear to produce the argument that cost would be decisive. It was merely part of the general puffs of smoke which were emerging in all directions at all times from him during his 35-minute speech.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who is a self-described moderate—I hope that will not get him into too much trouble with the Secretary of State—was not convinced of the value of postal votes as such. I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks from experience of having been an officer of the Post Office Engineering Union. His trade union experience led him to a view to which I think all hon. Members would want to give careful consideration. The hon. Gentleman's view was that there are other ways in which unions can be helped to a more responsible and more participatory method of conducting their affairs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned help with research and better communications within unions.
I do not for a moment argue that help with postal ballots would automatically do away with extremists getting into senior positions in unions and guarantee that moderates were always there. Of course it would not. It is silly to make easy generalisations. What is clear is that if the cost argument is used within a union which wishes to hold a postal ballot to suggest that it cannot afford a postal ballot, it is right for the House to look at the principle and remove that element from the argument.
Although the moderate hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme does not like the idea of postal ballots, he acknowledges that a substantial number of his hon. Friends—about 90—have signed Early-Day Motion No. 492 indicating broad support for such Government help. There is wide general agreement in the House in favour of the proposal. I am doubtful of the implications one can draw from that, save that it shows that it is not just the issue of membership of the European Community which draws support and assent from both sides of the House. It is right that something which on both sides of the House is acknowledged as helpful to the cause of representative democracy in powerful


organisations within the State should be supported by both sides of the House.
We have this afternoon heard over-tones of the argument that anything which is supported by the Opposition must be wrong. There speaks the authentic voice of the Tribune Group and the Left-wing of the Labour Party, which work on the principle of guilt by association and believe that anyone who sits on the wrong side of the House must be wrong whatever view he puts forward. That was part of the argument over the European issue. How wrong they were in their judgments then, and they are equally wrong in their judgments now.
The Secretary of State has his soul mates amongst such people. The speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) perhaps commended itself more to the Secretary of State than it did to most of us. The hon. Gentleman repeated the old canard which used to be put around by the Secretary of State, that the Industrial Relations Act was responsible for a large number of days being lost in industrial disputes. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the answers to questions given by Ministers in the Department of Employment, he will find that that allegation is totally untrue. In 1972, the year which the Secretary of State used to make so much fun of, 24 million working days were lost as a result of industrial disputes, but his Department acknowledged that fewer than 400,000 of those days were lost as a direct result of the Industrial Relations Act. That is a phoney argument, and the more often it is stamped upon the better. Many other phoney arguments were used in the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) dealt with some of them.
The Secretary of State should have been in receipt of the strictures of his hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) for introducing the notion that what we are discussing is tangled up with strike ballots. That suggestion first came from the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State referred to the ILO convention. We know that he spends night after night thumbing through the conventions and that they are compulsory bedtime reading for him, but the references he made to the ILO convention did not help our debate. If he is

seeking seriously to say that implementing the principle that help should be given to unions which wish to hold postal ballots would run counter to the provisions of that convention, he should say so explicitly. If he said that, we should wish to give careful consideration to it, as I hope would his colleagues, to see whether a way can be found to deal with the matter without breaching the convention. I notice that he did not respond to the invitation to get up and say that the two were incompatible.
We have also had an attack upon postal ballots from the Left-wing outside the House. In discussions within the AUEW the Left-wing opposed the continuation of postal ballots on the ground of cost. We should seek to put that matter right. When he answered a question off the cuff in the House last month, the Prime Minister came down fully in support of that, and, incidentally was rebuked by some of his hon. Friends on the back benches for doing so.
Despite his somewhat long speech, the Secretary of State did not make clear his own views. I know that he wishes to make only a short reply to the debate, but I hope that he will have enough time to make absolutely clear that he gives his whole support to the principle. If he does not do that, he should make his position clear. I have no doubt of his literary erudition but my support for moderation was in no way affected by the Hazlitt quotation he dredged up from memory. Surely Mr. Hazlitt had the Secretary of State in mind when he wrote in his essay "On Prejudice":
The most fluent talkers or most plausible reasoners are not always the justest thinkers".
How well the cap fits. So I throw back the quotation to the Secretary of State and in doing so ask him to come clean on the issue and say whether he agrees with the sentiments of the vast majority of hon. Members or whether, as so often in the past, he goes along with the views of the Tribune Group and the Left.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I ask the leave of the House to reply to the debate.
I refer immediately to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson). I do so in case I am distracted by other events and thereby prevented from replying. I thought that


my hon. Friend stated the matter most clearly. It is on the basis that he stated, and only on that basis, that the Government are considering the proposition now before the House. If the Government were to make any proposals on this matter I am sure that they would be within the terms stated by my hon. Friend. It is on that basis that we are making an examination.
The Opposition claim that their proposal is no different from that put forward by my hon. Friend and that they should be treated more blandly, or more kindly, than I have sought to do so far. At the risk of stirring some animosity on the Opposition benches, I would point out that most of my 35 minutes were taken up—if, indeed, my speech was as long as that—in dealing with interruptions from others. If the debate has served a purpose it has underlined the approach of the Opposition and demonstrated that it is not the same as my hon. Friend's approach. The speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) illustrated that fact.
Once again, I must refer briefly to the rules of the House. I know how offensive Conservative Members find such references. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) talked about artificial rules, and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth talked about niggling matters of procedure. In my opinion, the rule whereby the House discriminates between what is proceeding in Committee and what is proceeding in the House, and when such discussions should take place, is not an artificial rule. The rule was designed for the benefit of the House and for orderly business. It is appropriate that we should seek to uphold these rules, however Conservative Members may seek to throw them to the wind when they think it suits their immediate parliamentary convenience.
One of the major reasons why the approach of the Opposition to this subject is so different from that adopted by my hon. Friends—this was confirmed especially by the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, although it was illustrated in other speeches, and particularly by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker)—is that they have the idea that trade union leaders

are unrepresentative of their members in many respects. The Opposition suggest—although this was not set out in absolute terms—that the rank and file are much less militant than the leaders. Given that problem, they say that it is important that we should have postal ballots over a wide range.
If Conservative hon. Members study recent industrial history I do not believe that they will find that argument borne out by the facts. The pressure for higher wages over recent years has certainly not been led by trade union leaders with their followers not pressing. That is not our experience. The evidence of unofficial strikes tells against that proposition.
Most of the pressure over the past year or two has come from the rank and file. For example, we all remember the events that occurred in Scotland after the General Election. There was pressure from the rank and file for the greatest possible pressure to be exerted on the wages front. A whole variety of causes led to that situation. Anyone who considers the industrial scene and who tries to show that a militant leadership is dragging a slow-witted, apathetic and phlegmatic rank and file into industrial trouble is making a great mistake. I note the presence of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). The hon. Gentleman has some interest in the position of journalists and in the National Union of Journalists. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to pretend that the leadership of the NUJ is the militant section of the union, whereas the rank and file takes the opposite view?

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The Secretary of State is making a point which illustrates the fallacy of his own case. If there had been a postal ballot in the NUJ, the moderate majority would surely have voted to uphold the views of the union's executive.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has not understood the point that has been made. Possibly he has failed to understand it because he was not here when it was made. If the hon. Gentleman had been present he might have understood what was said by his hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) clearly illustrated what is actually happening. It


would be much wiser for right hon. and hon. Members to apply their minds to the facts than to try to provide remedies for dealing with a situation that they have not properly diagnosed in the first place. What they do by putting forward their case in these terms is to do considerable damage. They do not assist the process of getting a proper examination of the question whether assistance could be given on a limited basis, as some of my hon. Friends have proposed. Far from assisting that argument, they do it considerable damage.
If the case for postal ballots and Government assistance for such ballots is put forward in the terms set out by the Opposition today, or if the proposition is put forward within the kind of framework that they have suggested in Committee, far from winning support in the trade union movement they will have exactly the opposite effect. If they wish to succeed the Opposition should confine their arguments to the kind of terms that have been used by some of my hon. Friends.
However, if their arguments are confined to those terms they are forced back to some of the considerations that I put forward at the start of my remarks. I know that it is difficult for Conservative Members to appreciate the fact that this is not an easy argument. There is a balance of argument. I know that it is difficult for the Opposition to appreciate that postal ballots cannot solve every problem. I know that it is difficult for them to appreciate that different unions behave in different ways and that the unions should be left to choose for themselves. I know that such subtleties do not appeal to the Opposition.
The Opposition want by some means to resuscitate parts of the 1971 Act. We are determined that that shall not occur. If the Opposition truly wish the case that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden to be soberly and sensibly considered within the trade union movement they should not have had this debate today. They should not have put their arguments forward in such a candid manner. They should not have let the cat out of the bag. They should have kept quiet, and left it to my hon. Friends, whether moderate or not. Of course, we can conduct the argument here, but it is the immoderate language that

has been used by Conservative Members that has shocked us so deeply. They did not have a good case in the beginning, but I am sorry to say that they have ruined that case by the maner in which they presented it.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHOOLS

CIVIL ESTIMATES 1975–76

CLASS X, VOTE 6, CENTRAL AND MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a sum, not exceeding £14,142,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1976, for expenditure by the Department of Education and Science on miscellaneous educational services, research and administration, including grants in aid and international subscriptions.—[Mr. Mulley.]

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That Subhead D1, Item (1), Salaries &amp;c. of Ministers, be reduced by £1,000.
I am sorry so soon in the career of the new Secretary of State for Education and Science to be attempting to reduce his salary. But the purpose of this procedural move is to draw attention to the harmful effect of Government policy which is intent on doing away with good schools, which the Opposition are determined to preserve.
I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment if the Secretary of State feels able to indicate in the debate that he is willing to modify the more extreme manifestations of his predecessor's policy. In that case he will be left with his salary unimpaired and, if there is a change of Government, some day it might be worth something.

Mr. John Mendelson: His predecessor was a famous moderate.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That right hon. Gentleman declared that he was a moderate, but his actions did not always


conform to his protestations. We hope to hear tonight not only a modification of Government policy towards direct grant schools but a clarification of the details of that policy.
I wish to begin by asking the Secretary of State to give some idea of what plans have been made to preserve the future careers of school teachers at these schools. His predecessor has already told us that the future of pupils already at direct grant schools is being safeguarded. I wish to ask him how that is to be done. Will capitation grants at these schools remain at the same level in the future as they are today? Because of inflation will this not discriminate severely against pupils already at the schools? What provisions have the Government in mind for head teachers and others likely to be made redundant by this policy? What will happen to the 10,000 boarding places provided by the direct grant schools? There is virtually no provision for boarding education in the maintained sector. These are important questions, and I hope that we shall have full answers.
We are debating these matters in the context of the severest and most threatening economic crisis the country has ever faced. What constitutes a threat to the economy in general also constitutes a deadly peril to the education service in particular.
It has been suggested by The Times Educational Supplement that the right hon. Gentleman's preferment to the Department of Education and Science was made with sinister reasons in mind. First, it compared his elevation to the promotion of Carlisle United. It was a simile which was rather lost on me, but I understand from friends who are experts in these matters that it was not intended to be a compliment.
Secondly, it has been suggested in that journal that a principal reason for his translation was that he could be expected to preside more docilely over the bleeding of the education service than his precedessor. I hope that that view is proved wrong. It is right that education should take its fair share of any economies that have to be imposed. But the education service expects the Secretary of State to fight its battles and not like the Under-

Secretary of State who is responsible for the arts, to go over to the enemy, as that hon. Gentleman appears to have done.
If cuts have to be imposed, it is essential that they should be planned well in advance. Advance notice should be given and should not be adopted in haste and in panic. The cuts which the education service is undergoing are becoming increasingly severe. It was at the end of 1973 that Mr. Barber, as he then was, proposed reductions of 10 per cent. in current expenditure for the 1974–75 estimates and 20 per cent. in capital expenditure. Unwelcome as those cuts were, they had one feature to recommend them—namely, that they were for one year only. But the present Government have slashed the estimates for education well into the future. If we look at the public expenditure White Paper published in January 1975, we find that the Estimates for 1975–76 are reduced by £227 million, for 1976–77 by £292 million and for 1977–78 by £373 million. On top of this, as I understand the situation—no doubt the Secretary of State will fill in the details—the cuts announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget of £175 million will be applied across the board to the education service and National Health Service in 1976–77.
In addition, we have the continuing cuts in higher education. The numbers of students in higher education, estimated originally by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science as being 750,000, have been reduced to 640,000 and the numbers of teachers forecast for that year have already been cut from 510,000 to a figure which I understand is between 480,000 and 490,000. In addition, Lord Crowther-Hunt has told the country that in 1976–77 the growth in the education service will be cut by nearly two-thirds or 2·7 per cent. in real terms, to 1 per cent.
Is this to be the end of the cuts? Have we now heard the full story? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House this evening in his reply where these cuts are to fall? At present we do not know on what part of the education service they will fall, and we have had no guidance save for a vague statement that the


Chancellor hopes to preserve the schools service.
It is true that the Opposition as part of our policy are calling for economies in public expenditure——

Mr. Frank Hooley: Oh.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is so, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken that in. But what is vital is where these economies are to fall.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Where would you like them to fall?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Opposition believe in putting the number of teachers before the extension of nationalisation. That is one of our priorities. We believe in putting the school building programme before indiscriminate food subsidies. I could go on.
I want to know whether the Secretary of State, at the beginning of his régime, is willing to make the most sensible economy of all and call off the vendetta against direct grant schools and the private sector, because if that vendetta is successful it will cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.

Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman said—and presumably it is the view of the Conservative Party—that he believes in keeping up the number of teachers. Will he urge Conservative local education authorities which are cutting the number of teachers below the quota allowed for in the rate support grant to stop this process?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am always willing to give my views on any part of the education service to local education authorities, but the constitutional function of urging them to take action devolves principally on the Secretary of State.

Mr. Marks: Wriggle, wriggle.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know that the Secretary of State has acute hearing, and no doubt he will pass his hon. Friend's comment on to the local education authorities. It was with this economic situation in mind and the prospect of what could only be described as Draconian cuts to come in the education

service that I suggested in a speech in Scotland a week ago that if the Secretary of State were to drop some of the extremer proposals of his predecessor on the pace and extent of imposing comprehensive schools everywhere, we could get out of this sterile battle between comprehensive and grammar schools, which nobody but a handful of educational fanatics want.
I wish to quote from an article written on 18th April by the editor of The Times Educational Supplement following a visit to the United States, where he found widespread dissatisfaction with the working of comprehensive schools there. He said:
There is good evidence that the full, unadulterated comprehensive gospel is not held by many in the educational world and by few except ardent party ideologists anywhere.
No Secretary of State, if I may say so, with respect, to the right hon. Gentleman, should conduct education policy as though it were a kind of religious war. If there is a place for civilised agnosticism, it is surely in the education sphere.
What is the point of insisting on the implementation of a comprehensive theory of education and not providing a penny to make that effective? The inevitable result will be to end up with botched-up schemes and schools that are comprehensive by label only, and it will in the end bring the whole idea of the comprehensive school into disrepute.
The question we should surely be asking at this critical moment in our economic fortunes is not what education policy is most in accord with Socialist dogma—or with Conservative dogma, for that matter—but what education policy do the majority of the parents of the country want for their children?
If we ask this question, it is very clear what they do not want and what they do want. They do not want the education system to be used as a means of social engineering to promote a mythical equality which educationists such as Illich and Jenks have themselves abandoned as being futile and Utopian. To confine children in a disadvantaged urban area to a neighbourhood comprehensive school and to deprive them of the opportunity of getting to a selective school is not, as Labour Members seem to think, an act of social justice. It is an act of social injustice.
Parents, furthermore, do not want the schools to become a party political battleground. They do not want the future of their children to be put at risk every time there is a swing in the party pendulum, either nationally or locally.
Thirdly, parents do not want to see all children forced into the straitjacket of a uniform education system. They want to see a system which puts into operation the requirements laid down by Section 8 of the Education Act 1944. That act envisaged as great a variety of institutions as is desirable in view of the different ages, abilities and attitudes of the children to be educated.
What parents want positively is, first, a disciplined and structured school environment for their children, and high standards of conduct and learning. Secondly, they want to have a say in the education of those who, after all, are their own children. They do not subscribe to the doctrine that "the man in Whitehall always knows best", or, in this context, that Sir William Pile always knows best. That is a doctrine that would not pass unchallenged even within the hallowed portals of Elizabeth House itself.
To the achievements of those ends Conservative education policy has been consistently directed. That is why, just a year ago, we launched at Stockport the proposals of our Parents Charter, to give at least a choice of school, to provide for parental governors, and to limit rigid zoning.
We are very glad that the Government have now followed this example and initiative and set up their own inquiry into the governing bodies of schools. We would certainly welcome discussions with the Secretary of State as this inquiry progresses, and would be interested to know tonight whether it has progressed at all from the bare announcement we heard in this House some time ago.
Secondly, because of the ends we believe in, of high standards and variety of school, it is vitally important to preserve good schools, whether they be comprehensive schools, grammar schools, direct grant schools or modern schools. We believe in the variety of schools. We believe that is a good thing in itself. We believe that one cannot say that there

should be one type of school for every type of child. After all, education is not an exact science with predictable results. We are proceeding painfully in education, by trial and error, and learning all the time.
The case for a single type of secondary school organisation simply has not been proved. One has only to see the changes of view that have taken place over the desirability of large comprehensive schools to see how the kaleidoscope is constantly changing.

Mr. Hooley: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that in his catalogue of what parents want he has omitted one very important factor—that emphatically they want no return to 11-plus selection?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I can say equally emphatically that it is no part of Opposition policy to want to return to the 11-plus examination. What we ask for, where selection is relevant, is a flexible and continuous method of assessment and selection. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to make that point more effectively than I could have done without his helpful intervention.
Opposition policy is not for the 11-plus any more than Opposition policy is against comprehensive schools. There are good comprehensive schools and there are bad ones. There are good grammar schools and there are bad ones. What we are against is the imposition of these schools everywhere as a matter of doctrine. We are against the equally mindless determination, in my view, that no selective school of any kind will be allowed to survive within the maintained system.
We do not want the education debate to centre on this particular controversy, but so long as the Government insist on this policy of imposing comprehensive schools everywhere it will inevitably do so.
We in the Conservative Party also maintain that, given the right conditions, it is perfectly possible for comprehensive schools and grammar schools to exist quite happily together. This is so, for example, in my own constituency of Chelmsford, where we have two very good grammar schools and a number of extremely


good comprehensive schools. The 11-plus is entirely voluntary there. Parents can decide to have their children take it or not, as they wish. Some parents prefer the grammar schools and others prefer the comprehensive school.
To bring the illustration even nearer home, this is the fact in West Woolwich, where some political activity is going on at the moment. There is an excellent grammar school there—Colfe's—and two good comprehensive schools. It is that grammar school that the ILEA, abetted by the Government, is intent on doing away with, against the express wishes of many hundreds of parents in that area. This by-election may serve some useful purpose in education if it highlights the importance of the education issue there. If the Secretary of State will not listen to what I am saying before the result of the by-election, perhaps I can express the wish that he may be more ready to listen to it after the result is announced.
The questions we ought to be discussing are these: first, how can we improve the comprehensive schools which in many places are undoubtedly causing anxiety and concern to parents, particularly in certain urban areas? Secondly, we should also be discussing what is the place of selection within an education system of which the major part in the future is likely to be comprehensive. Thirdly, how can one provide, in the secular age, and in a pluralist society, for the adequate moral and religious instruction of pupils in maintained schools?
The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that these are real concerns which are troubling parents, and it is those issues which—if we could get the comprehensive/grammar doctrinal battle put temporarily into cold storage in view of the economic situation we are facing—we would be able to discuss calmly and rationally in this House. So I appeal to him today, when he makes his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, in the very great office of Secretary of State for Education, to see whether we cannot make a new start in education.
We will do our part in seeking to modify the asperities of this debate, but the primary responsibility must rest upon the Secretary of State. He is the only person who can do this. He is the only

person who has the power to leave alone the good schools of proven worth. It is not a new policy for the Labour Party. For example, this was the policy advocated by the present Home Secretary as long ago as 1959 in his book "Putting the Labour Case", in which he said that it would be in accordance with the liberal traditions in the Labour Party if existing grammar schools were left alone and left to continue their work.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to let the direct grant schools continue to send, as they do, 32 per cent. of their school leavers to universities and another 32 per cent. to other institutions of higher learning, and to let the education debate open up into wider and more relevant areas. In doing so, he will perform a major service to education in Britain and earn the gratitude of many millions of parents throughout the country.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should inform the House that I have a list of 16 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate.

7.21 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I shall try to comply with your injunction to be brief, Mr. Speaker, because these half-day debates impose rather a burden on the House, in that they mean that there are four Front Bench speakers. I understand that on this occasion it was the wish of the Opposition to debate two topics on the same day.
Perhaps I may make a few comments by way of general introduction to the debate from the Treasury Bench. In his very kind congratulations to me on my appointment, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) expressed the hope that I would be as moderate in practice as my predecessor had been in theory. No doubt the hon. Gentleman had given a lot of thought to that phrase. I cannot undertake to satisfy him, by his standards, in either respect—either in practice or in theory. But I ask him, now that he is taking an interest in educational matters, to beat in mind that example is better than precept. If anyone is trying to make education a party political issue—as he says, stirring up a religious war—he should


recall the phrase about pots and kettles. No doubt his nursery education told him about it. Certainly the Government do not want a religious war, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—the hon Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor)—muttered when the point was made by the hon. Gentleman. We see ouselves engaged in a crusade in our education policy, but not a crusade of the character to which reference has been made.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford said something, though not a great deal, about direct grant schools. I found it a little surprising that he had not read the debate that we had on 13th June when I made my maiden speech as Secretary of State. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's not wanting to read my speech, but I thought that he might have read the speech made my his hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair).
In that debate I made clear the Government's position on direct grant schools—what we intended to do, and why. I made it clear that on this matter I intended to follow the general policy adopted by my predecessor and to stand with him on the principle involved. That principle is very clear. The continuation of the present system of finance to the direct grant grammar schools is totally incompatible with the Government's commitment to end all forms of selection for secondary education. With my right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I shall very soon be making and laying before Parliament the regulations necessary to put our intentions into effect.
The House knows very well what the situation is. Before the end of the year the direct grant schools will be asked to make clear whether it is their intention to seek to come into the local education authority field of education and be part of a comprehensive system. I hope very much that most of them will, because I believe that they have a lot to contribute to the development of local education policy and to the education of children in their areas. If they decide not to do so, however, they may go independent.
I do not think that it will require very much, if any, additional expenditure, but it is quite impossible to give any esti-

mate of what may be involved until we know how many schools will be affected. It would be wrong to seek to prejudge the answers that we shall get from the 173 schools involved.
It is quite absurd that at this moment we should be giving a direct subsidy from the Exchequer, on the strength of circumstances as they existed 30 years ago, at a time when many local education authorities are sending very few children to these schools, with the result that we have a capitation grant which subsidises every fee-payer, irrespective of means. This central feature of the direct grant system has even caused a number of Opposition Members to wonder whether it is not completely crazy. Clearly we have to bring this situation to an end, and I said in the previous debate that, as a matter of principle, we were determined to go through with these policies.
I do not understand why it is necessary to make a special point about head teachers. We have had a number of discussions and given certain commitments about staff, and "staff" includes head teachers. There will be individual problems, no doubt, but we are willing to do all that we can to ease them. There will be problems about boarding schools. This afternoon I saw a deputation from the Catholic hierarchy, which is concerned with its direct grant schools, although it is clear that the Catholic Church wants its direct grant schools to go comprehensive.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Catholic Education Council has agreed to that, but many thousands of Catholic parents do not agree with its policy. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Catholic Church, which means the whole body of the faithful, I assure him that there are different opinions within it.

Mr. Marks: It is rather like the Tory Party.

Mr. Mulley: I can understand that many—not all—parents involved will object to the direct grant being taken away, because their children are enjoying a privileged education at substantially less than the cost. It would be against the normal run of expectation not to get protests, especially with a little prompting, as a result of a situation of this kind.
I want to make it clear that on principle we are determined to go through with the ending of the direct grant. As I assured the hon. Member for Dorking, we are considering a number of the detailed matters raised with us, as the policy affects teachers, for example.
There is plenty of experience on which to draw. Some direct grant schools previously have transferred from the virtually independent to the local education sector. We have some experience of what is involved in these changes and in fitting schools for a proper part in the comprehensive system of education.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford made a great deal of play about the economic situation. I ask him not to rest too much of his case on what he reads in such newspapers as The Times Educational Supplement. The hon. Gentleman referred to football. If any hon. Member doubts whether different versions of a story appear in different newspapers, I recommend what I find to be a very revealing exercise, which is to read two accounts of a football match, one in the local paper of the home team and one in the local paper of the away team. It sometimes happens that I have actually seen the match, and the result is that I do not recognise either account. If the hon. Gentleman has a file of Press cuttings about my appointment, I recommend him to attach the same value to those.
I regard education as being of prime importance. I shall do all that I can to get all the funds available for education and, even more, to see that they are all spent on education, getting the maximum value for money. If, as already has happened—and maybe it will happen again—there are cuts in public expenditure, it would be quite unrealistic to argue as I understood the hon. Member for Chelmsford was arguing—that education should be totally exempt from any such arrangements.
We are now considering the effects of the Chancellor's Budget cuts, and an announcement will be made in due course. However, I recall the hon. Member for Chelmsford, on my appointment, making what appeared to me a rather gimmicky statement, when he said that if I would not close down the direct grant schools or withdraw the grants he would remove

from his own policy proposals to expand the direct grant system.
There is hardly a Conservative Member who makes a speech at the weekend who does not scream—not merely argue, but scream—for massive cuts in public expenditure. I can only understand from that and from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that if he were anything to do with a Conservative education policy the little money there was would all go to the private sector, and heaven help the ordinary parents and children in our schools. That is a message I should like to see clearly spelt out tonight, not only to West Woolwich but all over the nation. Conservative Members cannot scream for public expenditure cuts and then come here and plead for privileged and private education. Similarly, they cannot expect the ordinary parent who is concerned and worried about his childrens' future not to understand that message.
What the argument is really all about is whether we should have a selective system of schools for a certain number of people who, it is argued, are able to profit from a high academic education, usually to the almost total neglect of the rest. It is that concept that we totally reject.
One amazing testimonial to the success of the development of the comprehensive principle is that today almost all those who are against that principle acknowledge that the 11-plus has to go, although it may be that they put forward some fancy alternatives in its place and talk about tests at 14 years, constant assessments, and the rest. We challenge the whole concept of a selective education for a select few. It is not even logical on the basis that it should involve 10 per cent., 20 per cent., or 25 per cent. of the school population, because if we look around the country we find that prior to the introduction of comprehensive education the number of grammar schools in local education authorities varied enormously. The number of the so-called gifted children who could benefit from this academic education varies enormously from one part of the country to another.
Speaking for myself—and I believe I speak for most of my hon. Friends—I do not think that education is just a question of passing examinations and


acquiring an academic education in the narrow sense. We believe that an important part of education is about learning for living. It is about enabling each pupil and student to develop to the full all his or her potentialities, not just as an individual but as a member of the community.
If social engineering means being concerned that the schools play a part in training people to take their responsibilities as citizens seriously, and to play a part in a community, I am all for it, and the more we have the better. I believe that selection at 11 years is wrong. I think the hon. Member for Chelmsford made a slip of the tongue when he said that in Essex the parents can decide whether to take the 11-plus or not. He implied that the parents take the examination. It is the influence of the parents both on the schools, on the one hand, and on the children, on the other, that has had such a depressing effect on our primary education—and it still has where the selection procedure continues. The most appalling thing is that so many previous generations have been condemned as failures at the age of 11 years.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Secretary of State has been propounding what seems to be the most astonishing doctrine, namely, that direct grant or grammar schools in some way do not equip their pupils to play a part in the community. Surely their contribution to the life of the community of this country has been unexcelled?

Mr. Mulley: I did not say that they did not play a part. I am concerned about education for all the children in our schools. The narrow academic syllabus, which may be suited for some needs, needs to be extended for children of varying abilities.
I reiterate that there can be no deviation from the goal that we have set ourselves, of introducing universal comprehensive education and abolishing selection within the foreseeable future. I do not want to argue facts and figures too much, but the fact that 98 per cent. of local education authorities have comprehensive schools and that 89 local education committees are committed to the principle of organising their education on the comprehensive principle, suggests to me that

they cannot all be wrong and that a great deal of benefit has come from the gradual—perhaps too slow—recognition throughout the country of the value of the comprehensive principle that we have been talking about.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should like to ask the Secretary of State an important question about the local authorities. He mentioned a percentage which had accepted comprehensive schools in principle, but is it not true that altogether about 40 local education authorities have set no date by which they will go totally and universally comprehensive. That number constitutes a third of the local education authorities, and it indicates that there is very strong resistance to the universal policy.

Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I think that there are only seven local education authorities that have not committed themselves to going comprehensive by a certain date. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the full details. As he knows, my predecessor and I have seen representatives from these authorities and they have been asked to look at the matter again in the light of the representations that we have made to them. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have the facts as we understand them.
It is the Government's conviction that a truly good school is a truly comprehensive school, and that the grammar school that develops into a comprehensive school is better than the grammar school that is preserved within a selective system. The Opposition prefer to take the view that it is in their political interests that there should be an elitist system of education. When anyone on educational grounds questions them, they say that they are not motivated by a political consideration.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Dr. Keith Hampson (Ripon) rose—

Mr. Mulley: I shall not give way again, because I promised to make a short speech.
The complete abolition of selection for secondary education is a start. Although it is only a start it is a necessary precondition for making all schools good schools and giving all pupils the opportunity to develop to the full within a shared educational experience. This shared experience will contribute in some


small measure to breaking down the barriers which bedevil our society. It is for these good schools that my right hon. Friend and I will go into the Lobby tonight.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Fred Silvester: The Secretary of State has made a number of extraordinary remarks. First, he seemed to be accusing people working in schools other than comprehensive schools of working in schools which are not good schools. I am sure that many hon. Members will wish to bear witness to the fact that schools of all kinds which have contributed greatly to the education of themselves and their constituents do not fall into that category, and long may that continue to be so.
Similarly, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to put forward the proposition that the whole of his education policy was devised because of inequalities in home backgrounds, or whatever, which are affecting children's education. Of course that is true, but does he suppose that the abolition of the direct grant schools will necessarily make it easier for most children from deprived homes to get a better education? It is up to the right hon. Gentleman to say how those children will benefit from the policy that he is pursuing, because the loss to others is indeed easy to see.
I want to speak about direct grant schools, but not because I believe in an elitist education system. Indeed the proposition that the Conservatives would benefit from such a thing is an absurdity which can be demonstrated by looking at the voting figures.
I represent an area which draws heavily upon the direct grant schools. The Minister said that he had no intention of changing his view. I suppose, therefore, that I ought to write to or ring all the people who are coming down tomorrow to tell them that they are wasting their time and to turn their coaches round on the M1.
There is a great deal of feeling about the direct grant schools not only from people whose children attend such schools but from those who have seen the benefit of those schools in their localities. The right hon. Gentleman should not forget the importance of the

direct grant schools in the North-West. Whereas only 14 per cent. of all secondary school pupils are in the North-West area, about 40 per cent. direct grant school pupils are in the North-West. If we take away those schools from the State system. we shall have a great loss. Already people in the city of Manchester have been deprived of them by the decision of the council not to send children from the city to direct grant schools. If one asks people in my constituency whether they have any benefit from that, one will get a very dusty answer.
We know that there are direct grant schools in Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Stockport and elsewhere which will undoubtedly go independent. Those schools will be withdrawn from my constituents and from constituents in Greater Manchester. Therefore, it is difficult to see advantage accruing to anybody whom the Minister claims he wishes to help.
At present those schools may, without remission, charge up to £400 in fees, depending on their calculations of the result of Houghton. If they go independent, those fees will exceed £500 or perhaps £600. More important is the fact that the remission system will cease to be available and the free places will cease to be available.
The headmasters and governors of some of these schools have said that they do not have the foundation of scholarship resources to provide anything like a similar number of free places. Therefore, they will become highly selective schools, entirely fee paying, for there are many people who can, and will be happy to, afford those fees.
The North-West has drawn heavily on the direct grant schools and less heavily on the independent sector. If the Secretary of State is seeking to demonstrate by this action a great egalitarian fervour, he is certainly not achieving it in the North-West. Indeed, he is making things worse, because he is destroying the opportunity for many children to take advantage of this kind of education.
There is a case for modification of the direct grant system. Most people to whom I have talked would not go to the stake in defence of the system as it is. But it has a number of distinct advantages. One advantage which the right hon. Gentleman should take into account is that,


although pupils in those schools are heavily subsidised by local authority and State expenditure, the schools provide a mechanism for funding private funds into the State system. I understand that about a third of the cost of those schools is borne from private funds. Those funds will go straight into the independent sector or out of education altogether. I cannot see how that is to our advantage.
All right, we have limited resources, there are things that the Minister seeks to do, and he is anxious to overcome the inequalities between children. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman may have all those objectives—indeed, I may share some of them—but it is abundantly clear that, by the withdrawal of the direct grant system at this time, he will advantage nobody and will deliberately damage good schools. The Secretary of State is damaging them either by taking them away from large numbers of pupils who would otherwise enjoy them and by making a more elitist system or by forcing a rough and ready change into a system which cannot readily absorb them.
The Secretary of State referred to the Catholic schools. In Manchester, for example, the Catholic hierarchy has put forward a scheme which it is trying to have accepted. But those schools, particularly the direct grant schools, are very much up in arms about that scheme. It is by no means certain that those schools will go into the State system. Indeed, it is likely that some at least will go independent.
I ask the Minister to pay particular regard to the North-West, because there the system is shown to be in its most extreme position. The North-West has managed to achieve a balance. Vast numbers of children from all homes are able to take part in a system of education which, unfortunately, is not so prevalent in other parts of the country. That form of education has provided a system whereby there is a considerable social mix and a wide scope of education. All this is available to people who know the schools and are willing to contribute some of their own resources. Those schools are doing a good job. If the Minister wants a shorthand education policy at this time, he should say not "All comprehensives are good, and nothing else". but,

"For goodness sake, let me find those schools which are good and, when times are hard and money is short, let me hold on to those like grim death."

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The Opposition are arguing, as they put it, that good schools should be preserved. By that they mean that direct grant schools should be enabled to continue in their present form as selective schools taking their intake on the basis of some kind of assessment of children's ability at the age of 11.
There is an alternative open to those schools—that is, to co-operate with local authorities in the development of comprehensive secondary education. That is the advice that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) should be giving to those responsible for schools policy in his constituency. The alternative, in homely language, is to go comprehensive.
The Opposition argue that if these schools go comprehensive they cease to be good schools, they are not preserved, or they are destroyed. It is no use the Opposition pretending that is not so. That is inescapably what they are arguing. They suggest that if these schools become comprehensive, they cease to be good schools. In the Opposition's view, the peculiar virtue of these schools is their selectiveness—the fact that they provide the kind of education which is believed to be appropriate for children who, on the basis of an examination at the age of 11, are supposed to be gifted. Their purpose is to provide education for that type of child, and that type of child only. That is the peculiar virtue that these schools are supposed to possess and that the Opposition are asking should be preserved.

Dr. Hampson: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that these schools take children also at 13? Is he denying the virtues of selection at any age and that children may have the potential for a good academic training?

Mr. Stewart: I shall come to that shortly. It is certainly true that these schools are selective schools, and it must be plain to anyone, except apparently, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), that they depend on some


kind of 11-plus. It is futile for the hon. Gentleman to argue that he is opposed to the 11-plus or, alternatively, the 13-plus.
What was the hon. Gentleman's phrase—a "continuous and flexible" process of selection? If one is talking about children in one school, of course one can make a continuing study of the development of a child's ability and make successive decisions as time goes by about the kind of courses which that child may most wisely pursue. But if the object is—this is the whole of the Opposition's case—that we ought to have different kinds of school for children with different kinds of ability, what does continuous and flexible selection mean? It can mean only that we put a child into one kind of school at 11, and then, if we find that we have made a mistake, pull the child out and put it somewhere else at 13. The more continuous and flexible we are, the more bewildering the child's education will be. In fact, it is neither educationally desirable nor adminisratively practicable.
The argument that one can remedy the defects of the 11-plus by transfer was exploded long ago. The hon. Member for Chelmsford talks of areas where comprehensive and grammar schools exist side by side. He knows perfectly well that the schools he describes as grammar schools have this quality. It is not possible for a parent to say "I live near this school and I want my child to go there" and be sure that his child will be admitted. For the child to be admitted there must be a selection process. To put it vulgarly but inescapably, the child must go through an 11-plus. It is no good the Opposition pretending that is not so.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford says that the 11-plus can be voluntary and not all parents will elect that their child should take it. This is the worst of all worlds. If we are to have an 11-plus at all, for goodness sake let all children have a go, because a child may sometimes astonish both its teachers and its parents by a demonstration of its abilities when it is put in the examination room.
Is it suggested that while children are in the primary school some parents should be encouraged to say that it is no good their children trying the examination and

it is much better not to bother them with it? This is to push the process of selection back to 10 or to 9. It is to create the kind of world depicted in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", in which children are conditioned from an early age to believe that they are alphas, betas or gammas and to fit themselves for the station in life which that early judgment determines for them.
Whether the hon. Member for Chelmsford likes it or not, therefore, we are debating selection. The hon. Gentleman chose to make merry with possible reasons for my right hon. Friend's elevation to Secretary of State for Education. He might ask himself why he and not someone else is there on the Opposition Front Bench. He is known as a warrior for the 11-plus and a doughty opponent of the comprehensive principle. That is why he has taken the place of his hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who was sitting there but has since, understandably, left the debate.
The objective of getting rid of the 11-plus is not only national policy. It is parents' choice. The one thing which the great majority of parents want to do is to get rid of the 11-plus. That is an inescapable fact, and there are good reasons for it. In the first place, the 11-plus always distorted primary education. It caused the primary school to concentrated too much on getting successes at an examination on one occasion rather than on a good grounding of education. Second, it was appallingly fallible—no one disputes that—and it was also alarmingly random. A child's chance of going to a grammar school varied enormously according to where it lived and according to the year in which it took the examination, and it varied considerably also according to whether the child was a boy or a girl. Those are objections to the 11-plus which the hon. Member for Chelmsford has never considered. Indeed, I doubt that he was aware of them.
There was also the continuing discouragement to those who, as it was put, failed the 11-plus, causing them at an early age to think "We are not the really bright ones". This is a waste of national talent as well as an injustice to human beings. Moreover, it was divisive because it encouraged children to concentrate


more on the differences of gift or achievement which might divide them than on the common humanity which united them.
One slogan today is "Schools are for education, not for social engineering". But the 11-plus is for social engineering. Nothing is more fatally easy than to use that examination not as an intellectual test but as a piece of social engineering. When it was a crude test of English composition and a paper of sums, it was probably fairer than when the defenders of selection got together to try to refine it, with teachers' assessments and so on. Under that system there is far more opportunity for favouritism and for making it a social rather than an intellectual selection.
These things have a long history. The Opposition always argue that we ought to study further how the comprehensive system works. In our previous debate on this subject, the hon. Member for Chelmsford produced the argument that enthusiasts for comprehensive education used to believe in large schools but have now changed their minds. I pointed out to him then that that was untrue. He was unaware of the history of the matter. Perhaps he should study the anthology of essays on this subject produced by the Association of Education Committees a good many years ago, the study by the National Union of Teachers, and several books about individual schools by people with real experience of them. They will dissipate the idea that some people are trying to put about that comprehensive schools are bound to be inferior to the grammar schools.
We know that there are problems in our schools today, problems of discipline and of behaviour. But it has proved totally impossible, despite the most determined efforts, to correlate those difficulties with the growth of comprehensive secondary education. Every one of us, I am sure, knows of deplorable incidents which have occurred in schools. These things always happen. They always will. They are bound to occur—not all over the place and not all the time, but they will occur, and they are to be found in every kind of school.

Sir George Sinclair: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that violence to the extent that we see it now

in this country, and in America, according to the broadcast yesterday, which the right hon. Gentleman may have heard, is no more widespread than it was, if I may so put it, in his day?

Mr. Stewart: There are ups and downs in these matters. I agree when the hon. Gentleman refers it to my day, but let him go back a little further. It is some time since we had to call troops out to keep order in a public school, as happened in the nineteenth century. These things go in cycles, and they are not related to particular kinds of school. The attempt to show that they are correlated with the growth in comprehensive secondary education has no intellectual or factual foundation whatever.
One may add, with reference to the care taken by the refiners of the 11-plus to maintain the possibility of entry into direct grant and grammar schools, that these children, who are supposed to be the ablest, do not necessarily show an encouraging performance thereafter. Many people think that these schools might do a great deal better, considering how much trouble some of them take not to take on any children whose education might present problems.
Even if all the claims made for the selective grammar school were true, even if it were true that they were all academies of learning where excellent standards of behaviour and high standards of knowledge prevailed, I would still say that the direct grant schools which, at this juncture in our education history, refuse to go comprehensive are making a tragic error which can be damaging to our society and to our civilisation.
The standards of value of society in the end are set not by a highly educated minority but by the experience and beliefs and values of the majority, and if one creates an education system that is deliberately designed to keep those who are exceptionally intellectually gifted apart from the rest, their intellectual ability will not do what it should—fertilise and enrich the whole of society.
That is what the direct grant schools ought to be saying in so far as they believe in their own claim to represent high standards of knowledge and education. They ought not to be saying "At all costs, how can we stand aloof?" They should be saying "What is the special


contribution we can make to the creation of really good comprehensive schools in which people of different gifts and abilities can learn, as good citizens, to understand and respect each other?"
The belief in comprehensive secondary education is not merely a piece of administrative planning. It is based on a faith in the virtues of a community where people, knowing that they have different abilities, different gifts and different interests, none the less contrive to understand and respect each other. If the direct grant schools throw away this opportunity, they will be making the error which has been made before in history by intellectual elites, to their own great disadvantage and that of the community to which they belong.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: It was only towards the very end of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), when he asked how we might provide good comprehensive schools, that I thought that he was beginning to become concerned with the situation facing us in 1975. He spoke with his usual eloquence, but what he said would have been more relevant to the situation which existed 10 years ago.
I find myself completely bored by this argument about selection—much more so than when I first came to this House. It is an arid and sterile argument which does not advance the situation one iota. It is high time that the Government, even if they do not accept our views, at least appreciated that we are concerned with one thing only—the maintenance and improvement of standards.
I must admit also that I thought the Secretary of State's opening speech in his high office extremely disappointing. In particular, he demonstrated a completely closed mind, and I was left almost speechless by his comment that the only truly good school is a comprehensive school, because, if nothing else, that certainly is not proven.
I suspect that, even after having been in the House for more than 11 years, I am still one of the few who, in their misapplied youth, were chairmen of education authorities. When I first came to the House, I was in principle in favour of comprehensive education. I am now

more in favour of the principle. But I am not always in favour of comprehensive education in practice, for the simple reason that I do not believe that one provides comprehensive education, nor does one establish comprehensive schools, simply by changing the names of schools or by providing what Lord Boyle used to refer to as "botched-up" schemes.
If there are to be comprehensive schools, as I hope that gradually there will be, they must be properly planned; there must be adequate buildings, and a great deal of thought must be put in to the planning before they are established. Because that has not always happened, there is in consequence a good deal of justifiable criticism of a number of comprehensive schools which exist.
If comprehensive schools are properly planned and executed, I have no doubt that in 30 or 50 years' time probably people will look back and wonder what the argument about reorganisation of secondary education was all about. I would think that if we approach this question with common sense those who look back in years to come will see the period of selection, from 1926 onwards until perhaps the 1980s, as an interim period, one further stage in the evolution of secondary education.
But if, on the other hand comprehensive schools are forcibly introduced everywhere immediately and all too quickly, and with inadequate thought, half their potential benefits will be lost and secondary education will not achieve the targets for the nation's children that it should. In this respect, I think that the Department should do much more to monitor the successes and, indeed, the failures which are occurring in comprehensive schools. I think that this would be to their advantage, and it would certainly be to the advantage of the education authorities, because they would know where mistakes had been made—mistakes which they could themselves avoid, thus benefiting from the experience of others.
I am opposed to the abolition of any secondary school until it is as certain as possible that it can be replaced by a school which will produce better results and a better form of education. It is crazy to propose writing off direct grant schools at a stroke. They have an


unparalleled record, and it is as near a certainty as can be that the education they provide cannot be replaced by anything better. The right hon. Member for Fulham claimed that we think that their peculiar virtue is their selectiveness. That is not so. Their peculiar virtue is the standards of education which they provide.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if they stopped being selective and became comprehensive they could still maintain those standards?

Mr. Morrison: I shall deal with that point. The right hon. Gentleman anticipated me. I believe that, in order to maintain those standards, it is necessary for them to continue as selective schools in some form or other for the moment.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is in favour of selection.

Mr. Morrison: It has been said that they should be abolished because they are an anomaly, that they are neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring. That is rubbish. It demonstrates a remarkable and incredible affection for dull uniformity. It also shows a lack of confidence and courage on the part of those who advocate total comprehensivisation now. If that is not so, why are they not prepared to leave direct grant schools in existence and, so to speak, in competition with comprehensives? Surely the direct grant schools can continue to provide for the moment a standard to which all other secondary schools can aspire. That by itself is a justification for their existence.
I believe also that education is evolutionary and often it is the anomalies that provide the impetus for progress. After all, let us face the reality that once upon a time comprehensive schools were an anomaly. Therefore, I appeal for common sense in our approach to secondary education.
From time to time over the years since I have been in the House dogma has reared its head much too strongly. In between whiles common sense has prevailed, and that must be the way it should be. I do not claim that in my own county the introduction of compre-

hensive education has gone with complete smoothness and without mistakes, but within my own county of Wiltshire the local education authority has been prepared all along to learn by its mistakes and to look at the introduction of comprehensive schools in different parts of the county with complete objectivity. In consequence, it has made fewer mistakes and provided many more benefits than is the case in many other parts of the country. If anyone wants an education on the subject of the introduction of comprehensive education, he would do a lot worse than come to the county of Wiltshire.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hatton: I very much welcome the reaffirmation by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this evening of the commitment to end selection completely and to implement the party manifesto in respect of direct grant schools. I very much welcome the statement made in my own city of Manchester in only the last week or so by the Catholic Diocese Schools Commission, indicating its willingness to have some form of non-selective secondary education in its schools. Its schools, in and just outside the city, include five direct grant schools, and the governors of one have already indicated their willingness to take part in the system of 11 to 16 age groups schools with a sixth form college. I reiterate the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) that the direct grant schools themselves now have an opportunity to make a new contribution to secondary education.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) spoke of a vendetta against the direct grant schools. It has been a very patient vendetta. In my city in 1963 there was a commitment to reorganise secondary education. Since then there have been continuing discussions with one group of councillors after another. As county schools were reorganised, there were constant discussions with the Catholic diocese to see in what way its schools could be brought into the system of non-selective secondary education. So it is not a vicious vendetta that over about 10 or 11 years produces a scheme that is still the subject of discussion. I welcome the decision of the Catholic schools in the Manchester area,


because it will greatly help us to end the 11-plus for many Catholic children.
As Opposition Members have said, there are parents who will still campaign to retain the direct grant schools, and no doubt some of them will be in the Lobbies tomorrow. This is nothing new. Many parents campaigned against secondary reorganisation. They said that it was a vendetta against the county grammar schools. But there have been no major lobbies, no demand, for the reintroduction of the 11-plus examination. The real test is that people do not want to go back to the segregation of their boys and girls into grammar schools and secondary modern schools. Let there be no mistake—if there are grammar schools on the one hand, there are secondary modern schools on the other, the schools for the failures.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester)—I am glad to see him still in the Chamber—referred to the large number of his constituents who used the direct grant school system in the North-West, and particularly in Manchester. That is an indication of how much of a problem the system is. Every year, about 5,500 pupils transfer from primary to secondary schools in Manchester. In a city with a population of 500,000, there are hundreds of primary schools spread throughout the city.
When Manchester took places in nondenominational direct grant schools and Manchester Grammar School it took 90 places for boys and 60 for girls. In a city of nine parliamentary constituencies, one third of all the children who went to Manchester Grammar School came from the constituency of the hon. Member for Withington. It is the sort of constituency that estate agents would describe as a good residential area. The figure is an indication of the social problems of the direct grant schools.
For 20 years hardly a pupil has come from the downtown ward that I represent in Manchester to find a place in a direct grant school. I could name one ward after another in the downtown areas from where pupils never go to the direct grant schools. It is a system of privilege, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has committed us to getting rid of it as quickly as possible.
There are still many problems in our schools. The hon. Member for Chelms-

ford mentioned some. He spoke of children in urban areas being confined to neighbourhood schools. I hope that my hon. Friends will not worry too much about such schools. Children are individuals, and cannot be packaged into grammar, technical, high and secondary modern school groups. It is impossible to have enough schools with the right number of groups for that. There are many good schools operating in the downtown areas of my city as neighbourhood secondary schools. I pay tribute to the heads and teachers of those schools.
We on the Labour benches will be watching carefully to see that the least possible attack is made on the education service by way of economies. If the Government cut back on teachers there will be a disastrous effect on class sizes. Specialist teaching in the urban areas will be affected, as will the siting and provisioin of nursery schools. We do not want to see such thngs as books and stationery, and opportunities for swimming lessons, taking a back seat. We shall give my right hon. Friend every encouragement in his move to get rid of the privileges of the direct grant system.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It is one of the primordial desires in good parents to do better for their children than was done for them and the best for the child that they can do. It is one of the primordial urges of any human being to choose what he wants. It is one of the protected sanctities—No. 26(3)—of the Declaration of Human Rights which was signed in Paris on 11th December 1948 by Lord Attlee when he was Prime Minister, on behalf of everyone in this country, that every parent shall have the right, as expressed in the 1944 Education Act and since repeated, to choose the manner of his child's education. To say "You may choose the manner of your child's education provided that it is comprehensive and provided that it is a school to which he is sent by the local authority," is a frustration of that fundamental human right to which the Labour Party was once, but is no longer, dedicated.
It is a further primordial human desire to search for excellence. Without it, in education, in achievement, in design, we shall never, as human beings, strive to


do better for one another. Excellence needs variety. The destruction of variety inevitably requires the destruction of the pursuit of excellence. Socialism in its expressed form seems to hate the search for excellence. Socialists believe that it is wrong to search for excellence. It is wrong to have initiative or to have—I shall define the word shortly—privilege, unless it is they who have the privilege and are enjoying it.
It is, after all, a privilege to be a Member of the House of Commons. To have that privilege we have to undergo a system of selection. All Labour Members are in a privileged position as a result of selection. But it is all right when it suits them. To get to a university a person has to be selected on his capacity to get there and to stay there. I have not heard any complaints about that. Recently in this House we have seen the Government take the view that the interests of hares were above the interests of the children of divorcees, in Scotland at any rate, and other children who may suffer from broken homes, consideration on whose future has been postponed so that we may debate the interests of hares.
Assuming that animals are more important to the Labour Party than human beings, members of that party would not tolerate a situation in which the horse which is to run a race was selected for its excellence and trained according to its capacity in a stable which might make it a horse worth training. The Socialist doctrine is that all horses should have an equal chance to go to all stables. They should all run in the same race, and none of them should win. The Labour Party certainly puts public money on every public horse it runs, with the inevitable likelihood that the bet will be lost and the money thrown away.
There cannot be excellence without selection, first of all of the pupil by his capacity and, secondly, of the institution to which the pupil is sent on account of his frailties, capabilities, sensitivities or aptitudes. To have a doctrine which says, whether it be in Penzance or Manchester, Crieff or Edinburgh, irrespective of population, that we will abolish every direct grant school by decree is an indication of arrogance and ruthlessness, and of the insistence that the direct grant schools,

or grant-aided schools as we call them, shall be done away with for some concept that comprehensive man will go to the local bureaucratic school and will get an identical education, regardless of his merits or capabilites.
There is a falsehood about this, because we are making an even worse selection. We shall select those who live in one area and compel them to go to such and such an institution. We will not, in the words of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) give them this generous, all-embracing experience of every type and man in life. They will not go one week to a school in the Gorbals, the next to a school in Eton and the next to a school somewhere else; they will be condemned to the only school to which they can go. They will learn the morals, values and habits of that school and that area alone. I do not regard that as being a great sharing in society.
There is in my constituency a supreme example of a comprehensive school. In Scotland we have many schools which are grantd-aided and which were set up by men of capability, often men who were uneducated but who had made a great deal of money and desired that those who were denied the advantage of education should receive it. In Morrison's Academy, in Crieff, there is such a school—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is one of the primordial rules of this House that we deal only with matters that come within the ambit of the motion before us. The motion selected entirely rules out anything to do with Scotland, because this is one sphere in which, surprisingly, Scotland has a degree of independence.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is pleasant that a Scotsman should be entitled to take part in an English debate. There are direct grant schools in England which take a proportion of local authority school pupils without having to do so, producing a comprehensive social mix of provan capability.
We have heard talk tonight of élitism, as if that meant exclusion. Élitism means the selection to do the best for the best, not the same for all.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): To hell with the rest.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am most obliged to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland making that sedentary interruption. It is not a question of "To hell with the rest." The difference between Conservative and Labour Members is that Labour Members do not want anyone to have good education in case everyone has it. We say that all should have the education which their capabilities and aptitudes attract.
We should extend direct grant schools. Everyone should be entitled to spend more money on the education of their children if they believe it to be right and worth while. The doctrine has been pronounced that the direct grant system is unfair because it subsidises every fee-payer, regardless of his means and because every fee-paying parent saves the fees at the expense of the general taxpayer. If we adopt such a doctrine it is just as unfair that I should have to pay taxes for the education of those with 10 children when I have only three.
The direct grant system saves money. At a time when we require to save money and not have public profligacy to destroy these great institutions, merely in order to indulge in a doctrinaire concept of comprehensive man, is thoroughly irresponsible and unpleasant.
The effect of this policy is not to abolish selection or to give comprehensive education, in the sense that the pupil will be comprehensively educated according to his capacity, but so that all pupils will be educated in the same way to the same dull, drilled, docile standard. Parents will be unable to say that they would like their child to go to a boarding school, a residential school, a music school, or some such school.
Why should the parents not be entitled to select? When the Minister replies, perhaps she will advise me how comprehensive education relates to the Declaration of Human Rights, which gives every parent the right to select the manner of its child's education. To abolish as a doctrine these institutions, which have served the country so well, which have trained leadership, the values and morals of the country, and made a contribution which is quite exceptional

and comprehensive, and to create a sterilised, frustrated system in which we all have to do the same wherever we live, is to partition and segregate the nation into areas. It will ensure that the native right of a child to be educated according to its capacity, and of a parent to choose the manner in which that child will be educated, will be frustrated by dogma, doctrine and jealousy.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Ted Graham: Having looked at the topic for debate for tonight, namely, the preservation of good schools, I thought that it was a topic on which the House would be unanimous and that, quite clearly, there would be no one who could come to any debate on education and argue against the premise that we are all in favour of the preservation of good schools.
Conservative Members have chosen to introduce invective and hysteria into the debate, and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) eloquently introduced, a bit of class hatred. There has been a great deal of imbalance.
First, the hon. and learned Gentleman told us that the great argument was the opportunity of freedom of choice. He sought to inject into the debate the argument that there always has been a choice, and that the parents of all children had always had the freedom, the right and the opportunity to choose the education that they thought best for their children.
Millions of parents in Britain would dearly have loved the opportunity to choose to send their children, for example, to the local grammar school, if that had been possible. However they did not have any choice. Their choice was limited by their means, by the ability of the child, or by the selection process which was used. There never has been the freedom of choice which Conservative Members so often parade as the acme of educational opportunity.
My hon. Friends and I believe in preserving good schools. Our argument is that good schools are equally, if not better, preserved in the comprehensive system. Hon. Members have clearly shown that the nub of the argument tonight is the method of maintaining


some form of patronage and privilege for some people who have access to it.
Edmonton, the seat that I have the honour to represent, is part of the London borough of Enfield, which is not unknown in the history of comprehensive education over the past 10 years. It has been involved in many dramatic changes—traumatic changes for the administrators, parents, and teachers involved. During that time, every administrator, every committee, has been concerned with the preservation of all that is best in the schools in the borough.
I do not accept the philosophy that the only way to preserve good schools is to take them out of the mainstream of educational endeavour, in our borough or any other, by isolating them, highlighting them, sometimes making them an object of jealousy. I do not believe that by sidetracking the schools which are held to be good one will preserve them. Tradition and academic achievement are important, but the best form of comprehensive education is not one with isolated pockets or selection. The best form is one which is all-embracing within an authority's area.
The first hallmark of a school which is worth preserving is its preparedness to accept the full range of abilities, not to decide that there are some levels of ability which need to be excluded. The second criterion is that the schools should be equipped to provide remedial education for pupils where that is desired. At the moment, in the London borough of Enfield, there is one school, Latymer, which is a voluntary aided school outside the comprehensive system, catering for 6 per cent. of the pupils of secondary age; the other 94 per cent. attend school within the comprehensive system.
It is a sad commentary that the pupils for this school are selected exclusively in secret, surreptitiously, without the collaboration of the local authority. A form of selection has been imposed by the governors under which there is a secret system of vetting pupils. Without public disclosure of the criteria, only some of those who wish to attend are selected. The full range of ability and the ability to help those who require it are crucial in a school worth preserving.
My personal regret as the Member for Edmonton is that the one selective school in the borough of Enfield is in Edmonton. I can understand the governors' feelings but I do not accept them. The maintenance of one selective school in the borough is educational nonsense.
In its latest report, dealing with creaming, the Campaign for Comprehensive Education says:
There is now a good deal of evidence to show that where comprehensive schools are creamed by grammar schools, they are not likely to have as full an ability range or to have as big a sixth form or A-level offering as comprehensive schools not coexisting. They may also suffer in staffing and general morale, which in many ways is far more important.
Not only is there the existence of the school, which is an anachronism; because of that anachronism there is an effect on all other schools in the system. The problems are serious.
Given good will on the part of the governors of that school and of other schools similarly placed, it should be possible to preserve within the comprehensive system all that is good about schools such as Latymer.
I take careful note of the response made by the governors of Latymer to the Secretary of State's invitation in Circular 4/74. When the Secretary of State asked governors to reconsider their attitude in the light of the Government's policy, the governors refused to do so. Paragraph 11 of the circular states:
In the case of voluntary aided schools the governors cannot expect to continue to receive the substantial financial aid which their schools enjoy through being maintained by the local education authority, if they are not prepared to co-operate with that authority in settling the general educational character of the school and its place in a local comprehensive system.
It should be possible for the governors of Latymer School and the Education Committee of the London Borough of Enfield to meet, to have discussions, and to work out a modus operandi whereby all that is best and worthy of being preserved in the case of Latymer is preserved within the comprehensive system. I greatly hope that when the opportunity is given to the governors they will respond with open minds and argue constructively with the Minister and his officers for the retention of all that is good and worthy of being preserved in their school which I believe can be done every


bit as good within the comprehensive system as outside it.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: When I read the Order Paper today and I saw as the proposed subject for debate the splendidly uncontroversial "Preservation of Good Schools" I had a vision of the entire House trooping through the same Lobby. I am sorry that in fact the debate seems to have been changed to that steadily impolite one of docking the Secretary of State's salary by some amount, which seems very hard considering the length of time he has been in his job.
This is not a debate about the preservation of good schools. That would not be a subject of debate, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) so rightly said. The motion, which if one should oppose it would enable the enemy to turn the finger of scorn at one, is a poor motion. Perhaps it is designed more to afford Hansard-waving by the members of the Opposition for tomorrow's lobby of direct grant school parents and teachers.
Perhaps having realised that the direct grant schools actually afford education for only 1 per cent. of the children, the Tory Party has finally decided to change the subject. Perhaps more realistically the motion should be about access to good schools, because it seems to me that this is what it is all about.
There is one point that I am particularly worried about. This is the only time I shall go back to the direct grant school question. On 11th March the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when announcing the cessation of direct grants to the maintained school system, said:
Grant to schools which are unwilling to enter the maintained school system or which it is not practicable to absorb into the system will be phased out, starting in September 1976. Arrangements to safeguard the interests of pupils already in the schools will be made."—[Official Report, 11th March 1975; Vol. 887, c. 271.]
That should be considered carefully. Does the phrase "arrangements to safeguard the interests of pupils" mean that another school will be found for them? It would be illegal under the nineteenth century Education Acts if no school were found for them. So the Secretary of State must admit that a special school will be found for them or that a similar amount of

money to that spent on the direct grant will be offered. Perhaps, in replying, the Minister will bear in mind col. 271 and give me an answer.
The Liberal Party does not often get Supply Days. Had we had a Supply Day on education, we should have chosen the subject of education for the able working-class child. Perhaps that is the most difficult problem of all, and one to which no one seems to have an answer. But we did not have a Supply Day and the Conservative Party did. Perhaps it is right to say here and now that Liberals are in favour of preserving good schools, and in favour of good housing, good hospitals, expanding industry and the Monarchy. Front Bench spokesmen must realise that they are not the sole guardians and protectors of educational excellence. We all believe in educational excellence. We have all heard too much talk about organisational systems, and it is time a little more thought was given to teaching.
We should all like to see the standards of the best becoming the normal. As teachers are as human and variable as the rest of us, some are better than others and yet others, in the memorable words of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), would have a riot with a dead chicken. We should try to improve the standards of all schools and not extend the direct grant, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) once suggested. It was never made clear to us how he would achieve the extension of the direct grant, unless it was by allocating more of the gross national product to education than had previously been allocated. As he was in a position only 18 months ago to persuade the Treasury to allocate more money to education, surely that was the time to do it, not when his party is in Opposition.
In our present economic crisis it seems that there will not be any more money for education. However, it would cost little to do a number of things to make education more effective. It would cost nothing to strengthen the representation of teachers and parents on boards of governors and boards of management of schools. That could be done at the expense—if a few pounds a day can be called an expense—of the people whose election is currently due to their political allegiance. Few know as much about


education as do teachers and, in the second instance, parents or guardians of those in receipt of education. It is crucial not that there should be just one parent governor of a secondary school but that parents should be properly represented.
When elections for parent governors are held, it is important to make clear to them—as it was not in my constituency—that the term of governorship is four years provided the governor has a child at the school. Thus at a secondary comprehensive school it is pointless being a candidate for election unless the child is 12 years old or under.
The Department of Education and Science is one of the largest spending Departments. I recognise the skill and dedication of our educational administrators, but there are signs that we are seeing in the new bulge, the foundation of the classic bureaucracy situation. The OECD, in a recent pamphlet on the Department of Education and Science, wrote:
Decentralisation of decision-making has not resulted in a high level of participation.
That is a valid argument. Participation by the community which is served by the scholastic establishments is probably what is most needed. We need participation that is taken note of rather than political interference.
Teachers must have the right to give an honest opinion about the schools in which they work without fear of what such a pronouncement will do to their career prospects. If a teacher feels that an educational administrator is incompetent, surely he must have the same right of a hearing and investigation without repercussions as the administrator has as regards his report. Bullock and, more recently, the National Foundation of Educational Research confirmed that, despite regular hysteria, education standards in this country are not in reverse and are not heading for the Dark Ages. Grammar and direct grant schools are capable and practical exponents in survival. They maintain their reputations by successfully adapting to changing circumstances. If circumstances are to change once more, I am sure that the good will survive. Ability, like cork, will rise to the surface.
At a recent conference on non-streaming, which was held the week before last

and reported in The Times Educational Supplement, the head of the joint mathematic and science department of a large school in the Inner London Education Authority said:
Children's ability in the secondary sector in no way correlates with primary school assessments.
He went on to produce charts to prove that some of the best results achieved in the first year in the secondary sector were achieved by boys and girls who were considered below average in primary school.
We shall be supporting the Government tonight but not because we are against the preservation of good schools. Indeed, if we searched throughout the land I think we would find that not even the Government are in favour of the cessation even of all direct grant schools. For example, I believe that the Royal Ballet School and Yehudi Menuhin's school, which are both direct grant schools, will continue. I congratulate the Government, because I think they are correct in thinking that their continuation in no way limits educational opportunity for the rest of the community.
We shall support the Government because we believe that their principles of non-selection and wider provision of educational opportunity correspond more closely to our own Liberal educational policies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The winding-up speeches will begin at 9.30 p.m. There are still five hon. Members who are anxious to take part in the debate. I am sure that they can all be accommodated if they are brief in their contributions.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: It is with some hesitancy that I rise for the first time in an education debate, as my experience is confined to teaching in a university. However, over the past 10 days there has been an education dispute in my constituency which highlights some of the underlying characteristics behind the debate. I refer to the dispute at Sedgefield Comprehensive School. I shall not enter into the details at this stage, I merely say that over the past weekend, having heard the representations of the parents at that school, I echo much of what the hon. Member for the Isle of


Ely (Mr. Freud) has said about the contribution which the parents have to offer to good schools and good education.
This whole debate can turn on the word "good"—since the subject of this debate as it appears on the Order Paper refers to the "Preservation of Good Schools". I recall that when I first went to Balliol the senior tutor addressed us at our first meeting with the following splendid words, "You must remember, gentlemen, that you are the cream of the cream of your intellectual generation". After there had been a mild vomit from many present, we realised what a good education meant to certain people. To many people in this country, it is the narrow pursuit of academic excellence to reproduce the species "don" at university which has been correlated with excellence and goodness. It is concerned with the reproduction of those who are unemployable except in the practice of the skills gained in the pursuit of Academia.
As one who was involved for a number of years in the admissions procedure at one of our older universities, what did I discover we were doing? We were selecting between persons who we knew in advance had gone to schools of differing qualities. We had to try to assess whether two Bs and a C from one school represented a better bet as a prospective entrant for somebody who had not yet had the chance to take A levels and who would never be able to come through the selection process even with those A levels behind him. The matter had to be taken on trust. In other words, we had to select on totally inadequate evidence.
In too many parts of our university structure one teaches the wrong stuff in the wrong way. When one examined the students, one examined them in the wrong way, and created a set of totally wrong criteria for judgment. That has gone back into the secondary system, whereby a school is judged by the number of university scholarships and entrances which it has achieved—not by the number of good people, or good citizens, or good general men that it has produced. Any hon. Member who believes that my children's opportunities—and they are going through the State comprehensive system—are the same as those of the person who started the same day at the same primary school but whose father

was on the dole, deludes himself. If we believe that in terms of social engineering and change the 1944 Act is performing its task, we are deluding ourselves. That legislation is failing miserably in that aim. Newsom child begat Newsom child, and so it goes on. The State system has established the view that those that have education shall be given education. The problem of the gap between the amount which the State invests in the education of the fortunate few is a great deal worse than are the problems of direct grant schools.
A miniscule proportion of those passing through the State system are granted a major contribution of the State expenditure per head. That gap is far too wide. Therefore, when the Opposition talk about "good schools" and the preservation thereof, what they are asking for ultimately is that to a small group of children—by accident of birth, environment and so forth—the State shall devote a disproportionate amount of resources. That cannot be acceptable to Labour Members. The State must set about doing the precise reverse. To those children whom nature and other things have disadvantaged it must make available resources to ensure that the disadvantages under which they have suffered are brought to an end.
I trust that we shall vote against this motion, because "good schools" are needed to redress the imbalances of a bad society.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. George Gardiner: This debate arises very largely from the disappointing assertion of the Secretary of State when replying to the debate on 17th June, and repeated by him, unfortunately, today, that he intends to impose universal comprehensive education and the total abolition of academic selection with the same destructive vigour as his predecessor. He acknowledged today that he sees this not as a religious war but as a crusade. I comprehend his point. For him, this is a matter of principle that cannot be breached or tempered.
However, in education, as in other fields, rigid adherence to one principle frequently means denying a number of others which are clearly desirable, and the right hon. Gentleman's rigid adherence to this one involves him in the destruction


of grammar, voluntary aided and direct grant schools whose academic attainment he cannot fail to acknowledge and which no one from his party so far has failed to acknowledge. It means, too, that he must ride roughshod over the clearly expressed wishes of thousands upon thousands of parents.
I wish very briefly to protest about the way in which parental opinion is being defied by this Government in order to enforce a schooling policy designed to satisfy the egalitarian instincts of members of their own party.
Section 76 of the Education Act 1944 decreed that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, so far as was compatible with efficient instruction, while avoiding unreasonable expenditure of public money. This guarantee was always imprecise and it has now been made pretty well worthless.
First, Circular No. 4/74 appears to whittle this right down to requiring local education authorities to pay due regard to parents' wishes concerning only denominational schooling, or bilingual schools in Wales. Apparently it is of no consequence whether parents have a strong wish for their children to be educated in a single-sex rather than a co-educational school, or vice versa, or whether they want a deliberately academically-oriented education for a child who has proved himself likely to benefit from it.
Secondly, the safeguards for parents provided by Section 13 of the Act have been made utterly worthless, too. Until February of last year, any body of parents or local electors who objected to an education authority's proposals for changing the character of a school in their district could appeal to the Secretary of State, knowing full well that that right of appeal meant something. Unfortunately, that is no longer true.
Thirdly, by pursuing this policy, the Secretary of State and his predecessor have rendered themselves deaf to any changes that have ocurred, or will in future occur, in the pattern of parental opinion. I have been able to watch this process under way in my own constituency, which is now in the throes of moving to a totally comprehensive system.
A few years ago officers of the education authority went round to meetings attended by minorities of parents, explaining how the 11-plus exam could be abolished and, perhaps, understandably, they came away from these meetings with the impression that the parents endorsed their general strategy. But, of course, the parents were never told that reorganisation would entail the denial of any choice between single-sex and co-educational schools, nor were they told that it would mean erecting an iron curtain around the catchment areas of certain schools. Now that they have been denied this choice, which they had before, and now that an iron curtain separates their children from some of the schools traditionally open to them, the complaints come flooding in.
At the same time, all over the country there is a growing concern among parents about whether sufficient regard is being paid by education administrators to the maintenance and improvement of academic standards. Too often these appear to have been compromised in favour of what educational bureaucrats call the social and emotional development of children. This is why a growing number of Britain's parents demand the preservation of schools of proven academic worth, coupled with flexible or voluntary systems of selection for attainment, and flexible catchment areas. This is why parents in many areas are asking whether the price which they or their children are being asked to pay for the universal abolition of selection is not too great. This is why thousands of parents will arrive at Westminster tomorrow to lobby in support of the direct grant schools which sustain these academic standards and offer their children an academically orientated education which under this Government's policies will be available soon only to those who can afford to buy it.
While we are preserving schools of high academic attainment, we should be doing more at the same time to raise standards in the rest. "Preserve the best; improve the rest" is a good maxim to follow in secondary school policy. To this end, let all academic and other results achieved by all secondary schools—we know that there are some very good comprehensive schools among them—be published so that parents may judge the schools to which they entrust their


children, and let the iron curtains surrounding too many of our schools' catchment areas be lifted so that parents may choose between the schools within reasonable reach of their homes. There is no legal basis for rigid zoning, and parents protesting against the dictates of authoritarian educational administrators deserve our full support.
The sad fact is that the rights of parents in the education of their children have diminished and are diminishing. It is Conservative Party policy to ensure that they are increased.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) made one or two references to good comprehensive schools and good grammar schools, and he raised this rather old argument about them existing side by side.
As one of those who were involved in the arguments in cities like Liverpool and elsewhere in the early 1960s, I attempted to work out with some educationists how possible it was to establish a comprehensive school with a grammar school. This took me on, as it has done many others, to a consideration of what the comprehensive school really is.
When we talk about a comprehensive school, we mean, amongst other things, not just that a wide range of subjects will be provided. We are talking also about a wide range of children. In most urban areas there is a wide range of ability amongst children. In many areas there are differences of class and home background, and in the comprehensive school which feeds a locality we are likely to find that widespread.
If we have a situation where we have a system of selection and we cream off from the community about 30 per cent. to grammar schools, clearly we take out that level of ability from the comprehensive schools.

Dr. Hampson: In the big cities the proportion going to these schools is between 5 and 7 per cent. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened to his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). Will he accept that there is no such thing as a purely comprehensive school? A school reflects the social and other factors of the environment and,

therefore, it is impossible to get all abilities and all classes in one school.

Mr. Thorne: There are very few areas where all sections of the community are represented in that sense. There are not any millionaires living around the corner from me, but there are some members of the lower middle class. In the main they are working-class people of mixed abilities. Some of them come from backgrounds where the income level ranges from £2,000 to £5,000 or £6,000 a year. In my view it is the people from within those groupings whom we are talking about when we refer to comprehensive schools.
I do not expect that people who vend their children to Eton will change that school for my local comprehensive school. Their motivations are different. Indeed, the motivations that have prompted this debate are quite different from those that exist on the Labour side of the House when we talk about education. It is clear that what this debate is about is protecting—as the Minister said in his reply—a few privileged people within our society at present. We have heard hon. Members from both sides of the House—including my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes)—use the term "good". However, I do not know what sort of definition has been given to a good school in this debate. It seems to me that that would obviously vary on the basis of our whole set of valuable criteria.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham worried me for a while when he appeared to denigrate academic excellence. With due respect to him, it is only when people have got their degrees in their pocket that they begin to denigrate academic excellence. Having been a late developer who went to university at the age of 50 years, I am very conscious of that sort of approach. It seems to me that there are many children in comprehensive schools who would reach university and other levels, but that does not necessarily mean that their school is a good school.
I suggest that there are a number of aspects of the definition of a good school about which this Government, particularly, will experience great difficulty during the next few months. In our comprehensive schools and in our common


secondary schools, when we have got them, we should be able to provide much smaller classes. I should like to see a tremendous input into educational expenditure, not the cuts in public expenditure that I rather fear this Government will be concerned with in a short space of time. I should also like to see a massive improvement in terms of equipment. I want the capital investment, which a school is, to cease to be a one-purpose institution and become a multi-purpose institution within the community.
I agree with the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) about parent and teacher involvement within the school. In my view, right across the board the community should be increasingly involved in our schools and in consequence we should begin to make them better schools. They might become good schools—I throw this in at risk of being accosted in so doing—if we abolish corporal punishment. Many Opposition Members have indicated in various speeches over the last 18 months that they would want to try to create some additional forms of discipline and punishment in the schools in view of the general talk about violence and indiscipline amongst young people. In my view, where there is iron discipline in the school, the organisation, like most organisations in our society, is hierarchically created. There is a pyramid of control from the head downwards, and the consumers, the children, are subjected to a whole set of bureaucratic rules. If they attempt to question them or ask a teacher to explain why they should conform with them, the teacher shrugs the matter off as not being his concern. The child is there to obey. If he does not obey, there is some appropriate system of punishment.
We get children to become good citizens—again, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham used that term—on the basis of their conformity with a set of values that we apply through rules in the schools. In my view, we must begin to question a number of those values. We may get some good schools if we accept that children at 11, 12, 13 and 14 are beginning to understand something about the community and the nature of society and are, therefore, entitled to question authority if authority imposes values on them which they resent, whether because of teachings in the family, church or elsewhere.
I shall conclude on this note, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. One point that perturbed me in the speech by the hon. Member for Chelmsford was his reference to the pluralist society and how we need to deal with differing moral views by ensuring—this is what he implied; if not, perhaps he will correct me—separate schools for certain moral views.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am afraid that I did not express myself sufficiently clearly and the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was speaking not about voluntary schools but about the problem of giving religious and moral instruction in the county schools, which are specifically not organised on a religious basis. It is that problem which is so urgent at this time.

Mr. Thorne: That is precisely what I thought the hon. Gentleman meant. I am probably expressing myself badly. I live in an area where there are Catholic, Protestant and Jewish schools. In Northern Ireland there are Protestant and Catholic schools. The evidence of what has happened in Northern Ireland is not conducive to the conclusion that setting up separate institutions serves our purpose in a pluralist society. There are many Indian and Pakistani children attending secondary schools in my constituency. We are not suggesting—I know that some people are—the setting up of separate schools for Hindustani children. We talk about integration in their context. Therefore, it seems to me that the ideal community into which children from all moral, religious, political and philosophical persuasions come is the comprehensive school.

9.18 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) has left the Chamber, because I was interested in his worries about selection problems when he was at his old university. The hon. Gentleman made no suggestion that universities should be open without selection. That is an important point. Life is full of selection. If it is right for the universities, why should it not be right for secondary schools?
Within our education system certain schools are reserved for those who are


slow to learn. Also, we have schools for those who are gifted in music—for example, the Yehudi Menuhin School, on the borders of my constituency, again, we have the Royal Ballet School.
What logic is there in not having schools geared to providing a good pace for those who have above-average ability? I am talking not only about academic education. I believe, as do most hon. Members, that education is for life and, to use an old-fashioned concept, for service to the community. One way to serve the community fully is to develop to the full the capacities that an individual has been given. For that reason, I should like to see selection going on, but selection to provide the most appropriate form of education for children of different abilities. It is in existence now. I do not see why it should be abandoned. Those who say that it should be abandoned may suggest that our universities also should be open, but that would lead us to a crazy world and, luckily, I shall not see it.
Many hon. Members have referred to the 1944 Act. Few have gone back to the basic principle laid down by its co-authors, Lord Butler and Mr. Chuter Ede, both of whom were interested in people more than in systems. They stated the principle that "the most important factor in the life of a child is the interest and affection of its parents", and the framework of their Act was based upon that and upon giving the maximum choice to parents. No one says that there is for everybody a wide range of choice, but, for goodness sake, when we have some range of choice let us not blot that choice out.
At about this time last week, in Manchester, I attended a major rally at which nearly 2,000 parents assembled together to ask that the direct grant schools in that area—in Manchester, Bolton, Bury, Stockport, and round about—should not be wiped out. They came from all income groups, the speakers were from all income groups, and they made the plea that schools which had served their area and provided good opportunities for their children should not be blotted out for the sake of something as yet unproven and uneven in performance.
Where there are good comprehensive schools, I shall be the first to rejoice—

and there will be many with me—because the value of those schools will affect, for the rest of its life, every child who passes through them. But let it not be thought that because many at present believe that comprehensive schools are the right pattern the comprehensive system is inevitably the only right answer.
I think that it was the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) when he was Secretary of State for Education, who said, about universities, that "a unitary system would imply an omniscience which we do not possess". The same applies to schools. We do not yet know enough about education to be dogmatic and to declare that this or that is the right system. If it is laid down that something is the right system for today, it will probably be the wrong system for tomorrow, but that system will have to apply over many years if it is established now in a single form.
I beg hon. Members opposite, therefore, to be a little sceptical about their own omniscience. I put that especially to Ministers when they think that they know what is the right form or the best form of school to give the best education to the widest possible range of children—children with all sorts of backgrounds and all sorts of abilities and hopes.
I remember an occasion when the hon. Lady the new Under-Secretary of State and I were debating another Bill—a Bill about marriage. She said that each person is unique, and two unique people join together in a marriage which is also unique—and she asked "In such a relationship who is to know what are the real causes which lead to a separation? We must find some wise person who will judge", she said, "we cannot legislate for it."
We cannot legislate now as to what is the best form of school for the changing society that we shall be facing in 10 or 15 years' time. In the meantime, do not let us wipe out schools that have served this country and whole communities so well. Hundreds of thousands of parents are up in arms. Many will be travelling to London during tonight and tomorrow to protest against the wiping out of good schools. We do not know the final answer about schools. We are only just beginning to find out, for


example, the value of the rôle played by nursery schools, which were so well championed by the Under-Secretary of State. Who knows but that we ought to be spending a great deal more money on them and not using it in the building of grandiose and now admittedly too large comprehensive schools in the inner London area?
Parental choice is one of the things that will be narrowed for hundreds of thousands of parents over the next 10 years if we wipe out selective schools. It is claimed that these schools are socially divisive. Again and again during the past three months, I have talked to parents who have moved house. When I have asked them why, they have said, "Because the school here is good and the one on the other side is bad". They had the money to move house, and did so. But that is just as divisive economically as some of the other divisions are by ability, especially when one realises that a great number of the 174 schools affected already offer up to half their places free.
I make the plea that when the Secretary of State is considering what money he has to spend he should decide to spend it on things that really matter, and that he should not just wipe out good schools. He should not spend money on botched-up schemes joining secondary schools which are not unified in site or in outlook, or anything else. Why wipe out what has done really well in the past, and is doing well? The success of these schools is shown by the demands of the parents to get their children into them. When the last survey was taken, a vast majority of teachers—70 per cent.—were shown to be against the wiping out of selective schools.
If the Government's policy goes ahead, it will be held up to ridicule throughout the educated and civilised world. People will say, abroad, "Here you have a system of education which provides great variety and which is the envy of countries outside Britain. We are trying to get selective schools established, but you are wiping them out. You must be crazy to do it". I hope that the Government will decide not to do so.

9.28 p.m.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: Much mention has been made in the debate of types of good school, what is

a good school and how we can preserve good schools. There has been no threat, by the Secretary of State or anyone else, to wipe out good comprehensive schools. That has not been an issue.
What we have established in the debate is that there are many good direct grant schools, many good voluntary aided schools, and many good grammar schools. Those are the three types under threat. No one is wiping out good comprehensive schools. Yet, with one exception, no hon. Member has criticised the academic standards of the schools under threat. I know that Bernard Shaw said that when he went to Heaven he would suggest improvements. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite have not suggested that as direct grant schools send one third of their pupils to university and another third to other forms of higher education, if the 11-plus is not perfect, as we are told by hon. Members opposite, the direct schools do a remarkable job with their pupils.
Similarly, Emmanuel School, one of the voluntary aided schools in London, for years has sent one third of its pupils to university and another third to other forms of higher education. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) spoke as though it was all blackboards and chalk in the State sector and golden pens at Emmanuel, but, in fact, Emmanuel has a lower staffing ratio than the Inner London Education Authority's secondary schools. The ratio at Emmanuel is 1 to 17, whereas in State secondary schools in London it is 1 to 14·6. I remember that 17 years ago when I was the head of a secondary modern school in Lancashire we had a wider disparity, and I think that the hon. Member's conscience is bleeding a little too much tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) spoke of the destruction of schools such as Emmanuel, Colfe's, Godolphin, Latymer—which I am glad to hear is likely to go completely independent—and William Ellis. They are being driven to total comprehensive or total independence. This is a disaster for our time.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Mr. Peter Hardy (Rother Valley) rose——

Dr. Boyson: I will give way once only.

Mr. Hardy: I am sorry about that restriction. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making needs to be examined. He says that one third of the pupils from these schools go to university and one third into other forms of education. Do not these schools often take the top 1 per cent. in terms of intellectual ability as that is recognised by the 11-plus? Does not that mean that schools of this kind waste thousands and thousands of young people who in other schools would probably find themselves going to university?

Dr. Boyson: I have never yet heard of an educational psychologist who knows of a test to identify the top 1 per cent. and I am sure that I should be glad to know. Naturally it is said that the direct grant schools take the top 10 per cent. The hon. Member speaks of a waste of talent, but let me point out something to him. In his book "All our Future" J. W. B. Douglas talks about the aspirations of high academic boys in comprehensive schools and high academic boys in grammar schools. Of the top 15 per cent. of academic boys in grammar schools, 60 per cent. expect to go to university. Of the top 15 per cent. in comprehensive schools, only 29 per cent., half as many, expect to go on to university. Is not that a great waste of talent? The figures have been published, and I commend the book to hon. Members opposite.
At present there are only two reasons why hon. Members opposite support the destruction of the good schools. One is that they believe that more academic education can be given to more children in comprehensive schools. The second is that it will help social mobility. I do not believe that the academic case for comprehensive schools as they exist in this country can be believed. Letters from the Department refer to Pedley's discredited evidence of 1966, 1967 and 1968. They also speak of the fact that since the introduction of comprehensive schools a greater proportion of pupils have stayed to the sixth form.
We can look at that the other way around. The Department of Education estimated that between 1965 and 1972 there would be a 44 per cent. increase in the number of pupils throughout the country obtaining two A-levels. In fact,

during those seven years the increase was only 23 per cent. Thus, one can argue that the advent of the comprehensive system is the reason why we have fewer pupils with A-level passes than vacant university places. I am not arguing that, but it is a better argument than the usual nonsense put forward in favour of the opposite view.
There have been two reports by the National Foundation for Educational Research throwing doubt on the achievement of children in comprehensive schools in mathematics and other subjects. If in the ILEA there are to be mini-comprehensives of 450 pupils with a full spread of ability, it is unlikely that physics, higher mathematics and classics will be taught there.
There is the argument about mobility, assuming that we believe in mobility in a population so that people may move into the occupations for which they are best suited. Dr. Halsey spoke last night in the "Sunday Debate" about positive discrimination. The best form of positive discrimination we have ever had was the grammar school, which took a boy from a deprived environment in a city centre, placed him in an academic atmosphere and sent him on to university. It was said in 1967 by a then Labour Minister that a higher proportion of working-class children in this country went to universities than in any other country. What we are seeing now is the growth of apartheid neighbourhood comprehensive schools in the middle of our cities. They can be called community schools or whatever. The smaller they are, the more apartheid in nature they become. At a size of 450 they will be one block of flats moved from one clearance area to another. A full comprehensive mix will not exist.
What will happen to the London voluntary aided grammar schools and to the direct grant schools? The artisan working-class and the middle class will move out of London if these schools are destroyed. Figures show that it is expected that half the children who would have expected to go to such schools will either be sent to independent schools or will move with their families out of London. The centre of London will become even more of a ghetto than is currently threatened.
Last Friday evening I was speaking in Lincolnshire. I met many families who


had moved from London because of their distrust of the neighbourhood comprehensive school. This may be an unfair statement, but I sometimes wonder whether the Labour Party aims at having only council houses in the middle of cities. Council houses are tied cottages, their occupants having a mobility rate of only one-fifth that of owner-occupiers. If there is to be this concentration of council housing in the centre of cities, together with neighbourhood comprehensive schools, there will be rotten boroughs or pocket boroughs belonging to the Labour Party on a scale that will make the eighteenth century pocket boroughs look quite insignificant.
Much is made about the subject of choice by Labour Members. They say that only 15 per cent. of children have a choice. Why cannot we increase that choice? The test of a libertarian society as against an authoritarian one lies in the degree of choice. Are we giving more choice or taking it away from those who have it? It is true to say that parents and pupils will co-operate with a school only when they have chosen it. They will not co-operate with schools to which they have been driven.
I was the head of a secondary modern school which was over-subscribed. People opted for that school and co-operated in a first-class fashion. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Durham were right to say that there must be an involvement of the parent with the school. That will come only as a result of choice and not of direction. We shall never reach the point when education is static. We halve never finished one form of educational reorganisation before we start the next. The education systems in eastern Europe and Russia are sound—and we must recognise soundness wherever we find it. Having been totally comprehensive until 1931, they took a step backwards because they believed that they had to look after their talent and ensure that they could compete in the world—which will not be the case if the system which the Labour Party advocates in Britain becomes a reality.
In Hungary at present there are 500 primary schools which specialise in subjects ranging over mathematics, gymnast-

tics, Russian, music and even Esperanto which account for 6·5 per cent. of the pupils in Hungarian primary schools.
We all know about the scientific and mathematical schools in Russia, 80 per cent. of whose pupils move on to take university degrees. Perhaps we need highly specialised schools of that type. The United States is beginning to think along these lines, and perhaps the direct grant and grammar schools are a means to that end.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John Stevas) said, Conservative Members would like a sustained look to be taken at our education system. Perhaps we need a moratorium of change which would enable direct grant and voluntary aided schools to do their job together and perhaps we should examine the workings of the comprehensive school.
Some comprehensive schools are good. Last Friday I visited one in Neasden. It was one of the best I had seen for a long time. However, there are others which offer an education which is worse than that given by any school in this country for one hundred years and where the deprivation is equal to that given to many chimney boys at the time of the Industrial Revolution.
We should accept the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and review what is being done. The results should be published. We should examine why some schools are successful and how success can be achieved in the future. Conservative Members do not want a world in which excellence and merit are accepted only in the sphere of sport and music, which the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) threatened. Nor do we want a society in which academic achievement is discounted because all cannot achieve it. This will mean a levelling down, not a levelling up, in the standard of education.
I am sure that some hon. Members read the Evening News—[Laughter.]—not the elitists who laugh at that paper. We all know of the élitism of the Tribune Group. On 15th April I wrote a full-page article explaining the disadvantages of the schools in the ILEA. Tyrell Burgess, a member of the Inner London Education Authority and a lecturer at a


polytechnic, wrote an article defending the ILEA. The newspaper said:
Let the great debate commence—you tell us what you think.
After seven days the article had not been published, and I inquired why. I was told that not one letter had been received in support of the ILEA or the statement by Tyrell Burgess. The newspaper published it the following night. Not one teacher, parent or child supported the views of Mr. Burgess. I am sorry for the honourable dinosaurs on the Labour benches, but this should be part of their reading in the future.
I should like to refer to the words of Dr. Walter Hamilton in 1966. He is now the distinguished Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. He said:
No power on earth can make all schools equally good, but it may be possible to come and do deals nearer to making them equally bad".
If the Labour Party continues with its present policies, that is what will be achieved and that is what we are opposing.

9.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): Although this debate was supposed to be about the preservation of good schools, with some relation to my right hon. Friend's salary—which I hope does not include mine—two or three things could have been taken for granted from the start. One was that we would get no definition of a good school. The second was that it was reasonable to expect, as I did, every Conservative Member, to a greater or lesser extent but mostly greater, to talk about direct grant schools. I should therefore like to make one or two points about those schools, although I do not intend to use my time to talk about them very much. After all, they represent only a minority of the children in the education system; right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have neglected the majority of children.
When we discussed selection at 11-plus, one of the strongest points made against those who said "Children have an equal opportunity to go to a grammar school," was always the geographical maldistribution of the grammar school—even if one accepted, as we did not, that it was a good school for certain groups of children

to attend. In fact, the availability of grammar school places varied enormously throughout the country. The same is true of the direct grant schools, which Conservative Members are so keen to defend—[An HON. MEMBER: "SO what?"] If the hon. Member will wait, I shall tell him. When people defend the right of children to be selected for direct grant schools, their argument depends upon where those schools are and which parents have those rights. What no one has mentioned is that the 173 direct grant schools are mainly in towns, with a heavy concentration in the North and North-West. Over a quarter, including half the Roman Catholic schools, are in the North-West—23, for example, in Greater Manchester—20 in Greater London, 7 in Bristol, six in Newcastle and only four in Wales. There is none in Buckinghamshire, the Isle of Wight, Cumbria, Northumberland or Derbyshire. I wonder how all those authorities manage to cope without direct grant schools.
We have had no definition of a "good school". I should like to run through some of the things said by hon. Members opposite. First, I would welcome the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Some interesting arguments have been made. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that grammar and comprehensive schools could exist happily together, including direct grant schools and all other forms of selection in that statement.
The hon. Member for Brent, North made the point excellently in the Black Paper II for whose production he is so well known. He said:
A balanced ability intake is essential. Each local authority has the choice of a bipartite system of grammar and secondary modern schools or of full comprehensive schools in its area. One cannot have grammar schools alongside comprehensive schools or the latter will be nothing but misnamed secondary modern schools.

Dr. Boyson: Dr. Boysonrose——

Miss Lestor: If the hon. Gentleman is going to tell me that that is out of date, I shall come to a more recent quotation.

Dr. Boyson: By all means: I am always interested in hearing my quotes. That was written in 1966, when I presumed that comprehensive schools would


be academic. The hon. Lady's leader, the then Prime Minister, said that they would offer a grammar school education for all. In fact, they are finishing up by offering a grammar school education for none. Now that they are non-academic, that cannot be said.

Miss Lestor: I have been very generous, but the hon. Gentleman cannot start making a speech now. He should write another article saying how wrong he was in 1966. He asked about the Inner London Education Authority and the mistakes that he said it had made. In that same article, he went on to refer to
a right to take an intake balanced in each ability group equal to the balance throughout London. This seemed and seems the only definition of a comprehensive school which has real meaning.
I accept that completely. That is a good definition of what we are aiming at in the comprehensive schools.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said that he would like to monitor the success and failure of comprehensive schools. Unfortunately, the hon. Member did not say what he meant by success and failure. I, too, would frequently like to do that, but I shall give a definition later. I should like to do that in relation to direct grant schools and all sorts of arguments.
One of the arguments adduced by Conservative Members is that one-third of the children who go to direct grant schools do not go on to higher education. Some direct grant schools are amongst the largest in the country. Manchester Grammar School, with a pupil population of 1,400, compares with an average comprehensive school of 900.
The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) spoke about human rights and said that parents must have the right to choose. It is no good hon. Members saying that we must preserve the right of parents to choose the school for their child. The fact is—I should have thought that every hon. Member opposite would know this; hon. Members on this side certainly know it—that every year when children are being placed in schools there is a queue of adults forming to say "I do

not want that school for my child. I want this school."
The overwhelming majority of working class people have never had a choice of school to which to send their children.

Mr. Fairbairn: Mr. Fairbairn rose——

Miss Lestor: I shall not give way. I gave way to the hon. Member for Brent, North and he took up a great deal of my time. I have no intention of giving way again. I did not interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am saying that working class parents have never had the right to choose a school for their children. That choice has been applied to a minority of parents. I do not regard that as human rights at all. I regard that as a certain privilege and a speciality, even, if one accepts the definition of success that hon. Members have used for a small minority of parents, because it militates, incidentally, against the progress and development of other children in our society, certainly against the privilege of job opportunity.

Mr. Fairbairn: Mr. Fairbairn rose——

Miss Lestor: I am sorry, but I do not intend to give way. I agreed to take a quarter of an hour on my speech. I have given way to the hon. Member for Brent, North. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to contain himself. He can always write to me, come to see me, or raise the matter at Question Time.
A point was made about developing horses. I know nothing about racehorses, but I think the argument was that nowadays there was no desire to develop any good horses; we wanted them all to be equal, and then none would win. I always think that one of the tragic or interesting things about racehorses is that they are not fit for anything else. One develops excellence in racehorses, but what are they useful for afterwards? They are useful for nothing. That is all they are useful for. It is precisely the same with a large number of people who have a narrow and blinkered education in our society.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) raised the question of single-sex schools. I was not sure of his point. He said that we were, first, going against people's views about comprehensive education. Twice in 1974 the people voted


for the Labour Party's programme, and education was one of the big issues that many of us discussed during the election campaign.
The hon. Member talked about the abolition of single-sex schools. I should have thought that it was made perfectly clear on Wednesday evening and in the early hours of Thursday morning that the Sex Discrimination Bill did not include the abolition of single-sex schools. I should have thought that everyone would be aware of that.

Mr. Gardiner: Mr. Gardiner rose——

Miss Lestor: I have no intention of giving way. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. He then made a most interesting point, with which I agree. He asked whether we wanted to abolish university selection. I will tell the House why I believe that university selection is unfair in its present form. It is all right for a pupil who goes through the system of education which allows him to go on to university at 18 or 19. But for a person who has to leave school at the earliest possible moment and who then tries, a few years later, to get into university when he has the wherewithal and the means to do so, everything is stacked against him.
It cannot be said that selection for university is fair or that the system can be defended as it operates at present. It is a most difficult task for a person who has to leave school at the earliest possible moment to go to work, later to get into a university or to receive higher education. We have all had experience of trying to get grants from local authorities which say that they are not giving grants this year for that purpose or who give such a meagre grant that many people who want to get to university are unable to do so.
People mean various things when they talk about good schools. Clearly, what spokesmen on the Opposition benches—with the exception of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith)—mean by good schools are direct grant schools, because they all talked about direct grant schools.

Mr. Cormack: Mr. Cormack rose——

Miss Lestor: I make another exception for the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). Some hon.

Gentlemen spoke of grammar schools. The hon. Member for Chelmsford referred to other good schools. He did not say which schools they were or how he judged them. He concentrated most of his remarks on selection and the preservation of schools which he considered reached certain academic standards. Several hon. Members referred to academic excellence.
Good schools are the schools which make the most difference to a child—schools which develop a child's potential to the full, open opportunities and widen the child's horizons. A good school is a school which not only compensates a child for a deprived or inadequate background but helps a child who has been so steeped in the academic ambitions of his parents that his natural aptitudes and abilities are held down and he cannot do what he wants to do because of the ideas and ambitions of his parents.
That is why my hon. Friends and I believe that it is not a question of preserving one school against another school. It is a question of offering all types of education within our State comprehensive schools to children with widely differing social backgrounds and abilities. It is not a matter of one school concentrating on one aspect and a second school on another, but of a comprehensive system of education which embodies all aspects and caters for all children of varying abilities, aptitudes and backgrounds, so that they can choose the way they want to go.
As I said, Opposition Members concentrated on the preservation of direct grant and grammar schools. I regret that nothing has been said about our excellent comprehensive primary schools, which offer the widest opportunities for all children with differing social and economic backgrounds and differing abilities. I defend those schools, and any idea of polluting them with more examinations and selection disrupts their whole purpose.
The primary school is a comprehensive school in every sense of the word. People come from overseas to see our primary schools, and they are held up as an example of what we can do in education for a variety of children of different aptitudes and abilities. That is why we shall go ahead and get rid of direct grant schools, get rid of selection, and


develop a fully comprehensive system of education that is not inhibited and does not preserve a system of selection that divides our children into the so-called success and failures.

Question put,
That Subhead D1, Item (1), Salaries &amp;c. of Ministers, be reduced by £1,000.

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 296.

Division No. 243.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Alison, Michael
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Madel, David


Arnold, Tom
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Marten, Neil


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhart, Philip
Mates, Michael


Baker, Kenneth
Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol


Bell, Ronald
Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Angus


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Benyon, W.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon
Miscampbell, Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hall, Sir John
Molyneaux, James


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brotherton, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hannam, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Budgen, Nick
Havers, Sir Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Burden, F. A.
Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Mark
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Cockcroft, John
Hunt, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hurd, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Cordle, John H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Corrie, John
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Raison, Timothy


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jopling, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Drayson, Burnaby
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Durant, Tony
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dykes, Hugh
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Elliott, Sir William
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Farr, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawson, Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shersby, Michael


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger




Skeet, T. H. H.
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Walters, Dennis


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Warren, Kenneth


Speed, Keith
Tebbit, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Spence, John
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, John


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sproat, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D.
Winterton, Nicholas


Stainlon, Keith
Trotter, Neville
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Stanbrook, Ivor
Tugendhat, Christopher
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Stanley, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Younger, Hon George


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard



Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Viggers, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stokes, John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Mr Adam Butler and


Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick





NOES


Abse, Leo
Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor


Allaun, Frank
Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Anderson, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Archer, Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Ashley, Jack
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Ashton, Joe
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Judd, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Kaufman, Gerald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kerr, Russell


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bates, Alf
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kinnock, Neil


Bean, R. E.
English, Michael
Lambie, David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgword
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lamborn, Harry


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N.)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lamond, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (Newton)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bishop, E. S.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lee, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Booth, Albert
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lipton, Marcus


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Litterick, Tom


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ford, Ben
Loyden, Eddie


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John
Luard, Evan


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Buchanan, Richard
Freud, Clement
McCartney, Hugh


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McElhone, Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gilbert, Dr John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Campbell, Ian
Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Gould, Bryan
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Carter, Ray
Graham, Ted
Madden, Max


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, John (Islington C)
Magee, Bryan


Cartwright, John
Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Simon


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Concannon, J. D.
Hatton, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Conlan, Bernard
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Meacher, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cronin, John
Horam, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Molloy, William


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Huckfieid, Les
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Newens, Stanley


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric


Deakins, Eric
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
O'Halloran, Michael


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ovenden, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Owen, Dr David


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter







Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Park, George
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Parker, John
Snape, Peter
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Parry, Robert
Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Pavitt, Laurie
Spriggs, Leslie
Ward, Michael


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
Watkins, David


Penhaligon, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Watkinson, John


Phipps, Dr Colin
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Weetch, Ken


Prescott, John
Sillars, James
Weitzman, David


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Price, William (Rugby)
Skinner, Dennis
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Radice, Giles
Small, William
White, James (Pollock)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stoddart, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stott, Roger
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roderick, Caerwyn
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Roper, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ryman, John
Tierney, Sydney
Woodall, Alec


Sandelson, Neville
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Sedgemore, Brian
Tomlinson, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Selby, Harry
Tomney, Frank
Young, David (Bolton E)


Shaw, Arnold (Illord South)
Torney, Tom



Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pendry.]

UGANDA (MR. D. HILLS)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about Uganda.
The House will have heard with very great regret of reports on Uganda radio that President Amin has said that Mr. Hills will be executed if the British Foreign Secretary does not visit Uganda in the next 10 days. If these reports are supported by the letters which I understand President Amin is sending to the Queen and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it will mean that the President has turned down Her Majesty's appeal for clemency for Mr. Hills. General Blair, who transmitted the Queen's message to President Amin, will be returning to London early tomorrow. I am sure that the House will agree with me that both the General and Major Grahame, who accompanied him, have conducted themselves skillfully and honourably in their delicate

task. General Blair will be reporting to me when he arrives tomorrow.
I shall, of course, study the reply, but in view of the reports already reaching us I am making this statement so that there shall be no misunderstanding of Her Majesty's Government position.
President Amin's decision has taken us back to where we were before the Queen's message was delivered. He has repeated his insistence that I should go to Uganda before he is prepared to remove the death sentence hanging over Mr. Hills. It is right, therefore, that I should emphasise to the House that Her Majesty's Government have made every effort to find a way through this difficult situation.
In the course of two messages the Prime Minister has dealt fully with President Amin's six points of 10th June.
It is utterly wrong that a man's life should be bartered against political conditions. There is no indication that President Amin has dropped his earlier demands; for example, the demand for the expulsion of Ugandans from this country or an end to criticism of the President in the press and radio and television of this country. These conditions we cannot fulfil. But President Amin has been told that his request that we should supply spare parts for equipment bought from Britain is capable of fulfilment, and he is aware that representatives can go to Uganda to see what is needed.
Our policy is clear. I am ready to go to Kampala to discuss with the President all outstanding problems but I am not prepared to go under duress. I have made no other condition and I give no other undertaking. If even now President Amin is prepared to exercise clemency, then my visit to Uganda will follow in a short time. In following this policy the Government have in mind their responsibility both now and in the future for the safety of another 700 British residents in Uganda insofar as we can safeguard them.
I repeat: President Amin has only to exercise clemency and he would have the opportunity for the full discussions for which he has asked. I join all those leaders of foreign Governments and the many distinguished international men and women who have appealed to him to show mercy, and I ask him without conditions to spare Mr. Hills' life.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Opposition are grateful to him for making this statement? We should also thank all those who have been engaged with him in this terrible business, especially our diplomats in Kampala, and General Blair and Major Grahame, and also the many African Heads of State and other friends of this country in Africa who have intervened on Mr. Hills' behalf. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that we sympathise deeply with his personal position and the difficulties which he himself faces? We admire the way that he is handling the problem, especially the forthright and strong way in which he made his statement this evening.
The Opposition would welcome good relations with Uganda and wish for nothing more than their restoration, but we believe that human life can never be bartered for friendship. We appeal to General Amin, in the name of our long history of friendship with his country and in the name of our desire for good relations, to meet what the Foreign Secretary says and to spare Mr. Hills' life without conditions.

Mr. Callaghan: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the sentiments that he expressed. I hope that they will find their way, through the BBC and through Uganda radio, to Presi-

dent Amin himself so that he will know that on both sides of his House and, I am sure, in all parts of it this appeal is made to him unanimously and that the Government's stand is accepted unanimously.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us who have been in touch with him about this matter know what an agonising decision he has had to take but believe that he is right when he says that no British Foreign Secretary can negotiate under duress, and that we are fully with him in what he has tried to do? Is he aware, further, that from now on it is President Amin who is being judged? He is being judged by the world, by the Organisation of African Unity, and by the Commonwealth, the Head of which has sent a message for clemency. On all sides, he is being judged.
Would it be possible to indicate to President Amin that many of us who have fought, against great opposition, to see African countries become independent, self-governing and taking their part in the world believe that if he goes forward with this appalling act he will do great damage to the cause of many of us who wish to see Africa one of the respected, forward-looking and mature political entities in the world making a contribution to world peace? That is what is at stake.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I take note of what he has said, and I hope that it will be taken note of elsewhere. I thought it right to make the statement tonight in order to avoid any speculation about dubiety—I shall not use the word "weakness"—and any doubts about our course of action on this matter. President Amin should be quite clear where we stand on this particular matter, and that is why I have interrupted the proceedings now.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: How did the Prime Minister dare to court the humiliation which has been inflicted on the Crown by advising the Queen to write to President Amin?

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is always idiosyncratic in his views. Her Majesty acted on the advice of the


Prime Minister, but I should not like it to be thought that there was any relucance on anyone's part to act on any advice that was given. I do not think I should go further than that. The fact that General Blair took the message himself on behalf of Her Majesty is in itself an indication of the way in which the message was conveyed.

Mr. Percy Grieve: As the Member for Solihull, where Mr. Mills' brother lives and where he himself made his home and was nursed back to health before he returned to Uganda, I should like to thank the Secretary of State for making this grave and important statement tonight. Within the last hour I have been in touch with the Hills family in Solihull, and they have desired me to say that they are immensely grateful for the tremendous efforts which Her Majesty's Government have made, through diplomatic channels and through the friends of this country in Africa and throughout the world, to save the life of their brother.
Speaking for myself, but, I believe, also for the Hills family, I take the view—I am sure the whole House agrees—that there is a limit to which Her Majesty's Government can incline to duress. No one in this country more than I, as the Member for Solihull where Mr. Hills lived for so long, and as a great friend of Africa, desires the friendship of the African countries, but it cannot be bought and bartered for human life, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. On behalf of the Hills family and my constituents, I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) for mentioning Mr. Hills' family. They have been in contact with

the Foreign Office and we have done our best to keep them up to date with events as they progressed. I know the anguish and the doubts which they have experienced. I am grateful to them for the forbearance and consideration that they have shown to me in all their contact with me.

Sir David Renton: Nearly 12 years ago I had the honour, on behalf of this House, of presenting the independence gift to the National Assembly of Uganda. The gift was a mace for their Parliament. It was presented as a token of friendship from our democratic assembly to their democratic assembly. I express the hope that with the help of the Foreign Secretary that friendship will turn out, after this affair, to have been an enduring one.

Mr. Callaghan: It is Her Majesty's Government's keen desire that there should be friendship between the people of Uganda and the people of this country. According to the radio reports that we have received, there are 10 days before Mr. Hills will be executed. We shall not remain idle in those 10 days. I must give serious and earnest consideration to what steps should be taken within the limits of the policy that I have laid down. We shall do our best to bring home to the people of Uganda that it is our desire—the desire of the whole of the British people—that there should be friendship between us, but it can be secured only on a basis of equality.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will agree to leave the matter where it is now.

Mr. Tom Pendry (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS

10.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): I beg to move,
That the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.
It is now about 12 months since the House passed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill which subsequently became the 1974 Act. Implicit in the philosophy of that Act was that a man should be allowed to live down his past to the extent that, where he had been convicted of a criminal offence for which he had been sentenced to less than 30 months imprisonment, he could, after a period of having gone straight, expunge all the legal consequences of that conviction, with certain exceptions.
It was always recognised that in legislating in this way for a humane approach to the problems of the ex-offender there were certain areas where the public interest would outweigh the interest of allowing a man to live down his past. That was acknowledged by the Government and by the sponsors of the Bill, which was a Private Member's Bill. It was, therefore, written into the legislation that the Home Secretary could take powers to table exemptions from the Act. The order embodies our judgment about what is right to read into the exemptions to the provisions of the Act.
The House will recollect that the Act provided that the effects of a spent conviction shall carry no legal consequences in the following circumstances: in judicial proceedings other than criminal proceedings—that is the effect of Section 4(1)—in response to questions which are asked of the rehabilitated offender—that is the effect of Section 4(2)—where an obligation has been placed on him to disclose in law or by agreement—that is the effect of Section 4(3)(a)—and the effect of Section 4(3)(b) is that it is not permitted for the spent offence to be used to justify his dismissal from employment.
The effect of the exemptions in the order is to permit the spent convictions

to be used in those circumstances for the purpose of the excepted provisions, offices and employments, which are stated in Schedules 1 and 2.
It has not been an easy task to draw the line between what was required to protect the ex-offender and to justify the public interest. We recognised immediately in Committee that there would have to be an exemption in the case of a person who had to have close dealings with young people. That was an obvious area for exemption, and we have allowed for that.
We have also allowed exemption in occupations which have close contact with other people who would be vulnerable to someone who was evilly disposed. Therefore, most of the medical occupations are included within that principle in relation to the chronically sick, the mentally handicapped and the acute sick.
We recognised also that in the administration of justice, in the case both of the judiciary and of those who administer the law under the judiciary, and in relation to the treatment of offenders after conviction, the public are entitled to expect that there shall be no hint that any criminal behaviour in the past has not been brought to the attention of the authorities administering justice in this way. A good many of the exemptions, therefore, come within that category.
In addition, it was obvious that we should have to make exemptions in relation to national security. These also are written into the order.
There are then a number of other occupations of a somewhat mixed variety in respect of which the key question is that the public interest is so great that there must be no danger of an ex-offender getting into a position where he could damage the public interest unless the authorities which sanctioned that were fully aware of his previous convictions.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am listening to my hon. Friend's explanation with great care. Will he explain why in relation to applications for employment we do not have in the order the discrimination between the nature of the employment and the nature of the offence which we have in Schedule


3? In Schedule 3 to the order we have provisions excepting specific proceedings in relation to specific offences, but that is not so in the rest of the order. For example, someone wishing to become a traffic warden can be required to disclose a conviction, no matter how long it has been spent, in order to be accepted. It may have been a sexual offence or a shoplifting offence. In relation to proceedings, on the other hand, we have a discrimination between the nature of the offence and the nature of the proceedings to which the disclosure relates. That is not so when it is an application for a job. Can my hon. Friend explain that?

Mr. Lyon: My hon. Friend is in error in thinking that Schedule 3 is drafted as he suggests. However, he has raised an important matter, and I shall come to it in due course, since it affects the whole of the order.
I was saying that there were a number of occupations of various kinds in respect of which we felt that the public interest outweighed the interests of the ex-offender, and I was about to give some examples. One is the case of a firearms dealer requiring a firearms certificate. We made exemptions also in relation to the Gaming Board because of the serious danger of criminal interests becoming involved in gaming—which was one of the reasons for the passing of the Gaming Act 1968 in the first place. We made exemptions also in relation to insurance companies because of the acute danger of the kind of conduct which has become only too familiar in recent years involving directors of insurance companies who have defrauded the public. That is, in effect, the justification for the exemptions in respect of a number of the various occupations which fall outside the classifications which I indicated previously.
I should add that, although the number of exemptions in the various schedules looks quite large, it is substantially less than the number of applications for exemption which we received. We were quite firm that we would not allow exemptions merely because a profession or employer believed that there would be personal danger to him if an ex-offender were employed. Therefore, we allowed no exemption for the banks or for the diamond bourse, nor in relation

to Hatton Garden or the Stock Exchange, the former of which applied for exemption on the basis that there might be serious danger in their public capacity if they employed ex-offenders.
I accept that there is a danger in having made that ruling, that sometimes a serious offence may be committed by an ex-offender who was allowed to be employed because his previous conviction did not come to the notice of his employer. That has always been the danger in the Act itself. However, the House took a clear decision last year—a decision which I suggested was right for it to take at that time and which I believe still to be right—that it was right to take that risk in the interests of a humanitarian move forward for the ex-offender. The House decided that it should bear the consequences of that risk. Therefore, we refused to exempt a large number of employers who applied.
In the cases where an exemption is specified under the order we decided to allow the notification of all previous convictions. That is the point that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). It applies in the case of all the exemptions indicated in the order, and includes those under Schedule 3. I accept that it would have been desirable to specify in relation to each exemption the kind of offence which seemed to be germane to the consideration that we had in mind in making the exemption—for instance, in relation to the residential care of young children, to specify only sexual offences. However, we found that it was administratively impossible to draft the order in a way that would allow for all the exemptions with that degree of fine tuning.
Equally, I am not convinced, even at the end of what has been quite an exhaustive process, that we have drawn the line tightly enough. There are a number of occupations and employments which are specified in the order where I have some reservations still that we should have made an exemption. I think in particular of dentists, dental hygienists, dental auxiliaries, ophthalmic opticians and dispensing opticians. However, in some of those cases there was justification in the sense that there was access


to drugs. Others came under the general disciplinary body of their profession. For instance, it was difficult to make the exemption relate only to dentists and not to other parts of the occupation which come under the same disciplinary code.
I am not entirely happy, as the House can see, that it would have been impossible to have made the dividing line tighter. All I can say is that we shall keep both these considerations in mind—namely, the nature of the conviction that should be disclosed and the kind of occupation that should be exempted—as we monitor the effects of the Act. We hope that in due course it will be possible to introduce another order which will narrow down the exemptions.
It follows from what I have said about those two considerations that I do not believe that merely because a particular employer or a particular profession is allowed to inquire as to the previous spent conviction of a potential employee or member of the profession they should assume that Parliament is allowing them to use that conviction to the detriment of the employee.
We had a number of applications from people—most notably from the Ministry of Defence, which wanted to exempt all members of the Armed Forces—who said that they already took this factor into consideration in their recruitment policies and did not use previous convictions against a man in instances where it was unfair so to do. I do not see that there is anything wrong with those who now have an exemption under the order applying the same kind of refined policy to the information that will be disclosed to them.
For instance, it does not seem to be axiomatic that every previous conviction of a potential teacher should be said to be detrimental to his prospects of joining the teaching profession. There are obvious areas of criminal offences committed a long time ago of which it could be said that the man had lived down his past and that there was no danger to the children he would teach and that he should, therefore, be accepted into the profession.
Only a fortnight ago I received what in some ways was a rather heartwarming letter and in others a rather pathetic letter from a man who said that he had been looking forward to the implementation of

the Act for some time because he wanted to become a member of the Bar. He had had a conviction when he was 16 years of age when, with a group of other youths, he had been involved in a shop-breaking offence. He hoped that the Act would expunge the consequences of that when he applied to join the Bar.
He had written to the Senate and had received the reply that the matter would have to be disclosed under the existing law, and he was sorry that we had put in an exemption, as we have, for that offence to be disclosed. I have indicated that we have done so in order that those responsible for recruitment to the Bar should have the knowledge before them, but I do not take the view that in every single case a previous conviction would debar a man from practising in the legal profession. I think that in such circumstances the Bar could well take the view that the philosophy of the Act should be that a man's conviction at the age of 16 in such circumstances should be overlooked some 10 or 11 years later when he applied in wholly different circumstances to join the profession.
I want to stress that, because if we receive evidence that the exemptions are not being applied in the spirit I have indicated, it would be right for the Government to look again at the scope of the exemptions we have granted to see whether it is necessary for all these occupations to be excluded, and in particular to see whether the bodies concerned should receive every previous conviction however germane to their consideration.
Finally, as the House will know, the Act does not apply to criminal proceedings. That was a deliberate decision that we made during the discussions on the Bill. We found it too difficult to devise a dividing line between what was acceptable in criminal proceedings and what was not. We thought it better to leave it to the discretion of the court to apply the philosophy of the Act in the concrete situation that it faced in a criminal case.
In order to give some backing to that, we received an undertaking from the Lord Chief Justice that he would issue a practical direction spelling out the consequences of the Act for the criminal courts in relation to their sentencing. I am happy to tell the House that the Lord Chief Justice has approved a draft,


which I hope will be announced shortly, and which will set out for the courts the considerations they ought to apply in dealing with an offender when it comes to sentencing when that offender has a previous spent conviction. It was my hope that we would also be able to deal in this way with the question of the use of a spent conviction during the course of the trial in relation to the rules of evidence.
We found that it was not considered right to use a practice direction to amend the rules of evidence which had been established either by statute or by case law. In those circumstances the practice direction will not cover the use of spent convictions during the trial. Nevertheless, I hope that the courts and those who practice in them will observe the spirit of the Act in deciding what is relevant to put in relation to a witness or to the accused when they use previous convictions. I hope that it will be possible to avoid using a spent conviction either against a witness or against the accused save where it seems to be germane to the point being made which the court has to try.
I have no power to intervene. All that I can do is to express the hope that the courts will act in the way I have indicated. If it proves that practice does not follow the philosophy of the Act, it may be necessary to reconsider the law of evidence and see whether something can be done.
The upshot of the Act and the exceptions should be that over a wide range of activities in which the ex-offender wishes to engage he will now suffer no consequences whatever if when asked whether he has a previous conviction he denies it when the conviction has become spent. That will mean that considerable numbers of ex-offenders who made a mistake and have lived it down will be treated in future as if they had never made the error.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I welcome with some qualifications the order and the spirit in which the Minister moved it. All of us who approved of the original Act as an act of public mercy and as a useful tool in the rehabilitation of offenders in society recognised that in

practice it might give rise to considerable difficulties. I will not adumbrate all of those tonight. A great many are dealt with in the order. That is why I give the order qualified approval.
I share the Minister's hesitation about some of the inclusions and I regret some of the exclusions. I would have thought, for instance, that it was important to include the banking profession and perhaps the Stock Exchange. I regret that the Home Department has not acceded to the representations which I gather have been made by the banking profession. Since they have been excluded, I fail to see why dentists and dental hygienists have been included. I appreciate that there was a possible problem over access to drugs, but that pales into insignificance beside the access that some people have to enormous sums of money in the banks. If it was necessary, as I think it was, to include certain offices in insurance, it would have been useful to include banking.
This kind of point may sound carping, but this is a matter in which Parliament and society will have to proceed cautiously and slowly and judge the results as time goes on. I believe that the main result will be to enable large numbers of people to live down spent convictions. To that extent and for that reason, I applauded the original Act.
The Minister referred to the legal profession, particularly the Bar, of which he and I are members. I am sorry that he thought it necessary to sound a note of caution. It was plainly absolutely essential that the Inns of Court, in admitting people to the Bar, should be aware of anything that might have blotted the copybook of the would-be entrant. As a member of that profession, I have noticed over the years that the Inns of Court have been prepared to exercise mercy when people have applied to become members of the Bar who have had minor offences in their background. I should say that because at least one case came within my personal experience. There is no need to caution the Inns of Court or the Senate of the Bar in this regard. Their members are men of the world and they know how to look after the integrity of the profession which still resides in their hands.
With those words, I welcome the order.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: The Minister is a man for whom I have the highest respect and admiration. I was pleased that he presented the order with some diffidence and clear evidence of apprehension and regret. That regret was fully justified. A good case could perhaps be made against the original Act. It may have been a bad Act: it may have been a good Act. What is not legitimate is what we are doing tonight, which is repealing its provisions in respect of the learned professions and leaving it in existence for the rest of society.
The order does not contain the kind of discriminating exceptions which have been proposed to the Minister by various local authorities. I have written to him expressing my own reservations about the type of detailed exceptions proposed by the Greater London Council. To be fair, they related to certain offences being disclosable in relation to certain jobs. I thought the council drew them a little too wide, but at least it had worked on the right lines. But to say that one could not become a traffic warden or hold one of these other professions because of a trivial offence in a wholly different field five, seven or ten years ago is ridiculous.
My hon. Friend said that the Ministry of Defence has argued that the Armed Forces should be exempted from the provisions of the Act. I can well imagine the pressures which are brought to beat on the Minister from the Civil Service, the local authorities, the nationalised industries, the bodies which are listed in the order, and the learned professions.
If an exemption is to be made, I want my bank manager to be accorded the same sort of treatment. It is not legitimate to repeal an Act by order which is presented quietly to a House which does not contain a large number of Members. We shall destroy the purpose of the Act if the order is approved in this form.
What I had expected from my hon. Friend was a proposal that specific exceptions should be made in relation to specific jobs for specific offences. For instance, it is right that somebody who is to have access to young children should have to disclose his convictions for sexual offences. Part II of Schedule 1 lists traffic wardens, probation officers,

Any employment as a teacher
Proprietors of independent schools
Any employment by a local authority in connection with the provision of social services or by any other body in connection with the provision by it of similar services, being employment which is of such a kind as to enable the holder to have access to any of the following classes of person in the course of his normal duties, namely—
(a) persons under the age of 18 or over the age of 65".
What person employed in local government work could avoid being in contact with persons under the age of 18 or over the age of 65? I should have thought that anybody employed by a local authority would have such dealings.
My hon. Friend said that, although the person concerned would have to disclose the information, the local authority or Government Department did not have to act on it. Of course it does not. But if not, why have the order at all?
What is proposed is the repeal of the Act as regards the entire public sector and the learned professions. I am glad to learn that my hon. Friend proposes this with reluctance, but I wish it was not proposed. I trust that my Friend will think again about the order. It is not the type of order that he, of all people, should have presented to the House.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I do not take the view that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has expressed, that this is a bad Act. I do not know whether it is a bad Act or a good one. I do not know whether I should be approving or disapproving of it. We simply do not know with any certainty—the Minister himself was frank enough to say this—exactly how the Act will work. One hopes that it will work well. Those of us who like the basic philosophy of the Act wish it well.
Before we can make any sensible or competent criticism, or, indeed, express any point of view about the order, it is necessary to reflect upon the philosophy of the Act. The main object of the 1974 Act was to protect the offender who has kept clear of crime for a qualifying period of years from an unauthorised disclosure of a previous offence. The length of the qualifying period depends upon the sentence which was imposed on the offender.


After five years for a non-custodial sentence, after seven years for a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months, and after 10 years for a sentence of imprisonment exceeding six months but not exceeding 30 months, a person will no longer be exposed to the necessity of disclosing his previous criminal offences. All that is aimed at making the rehabilitation of the offender who is determined to overcome his criminal past as easy as can be.
The Act is based on the report of a committee set up jointly by Justice, the Howard League and NACRO under the chairmanship of a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner. The committee, whose report the Government accepted and eventually acted upon, enlisted the help of the Home Office research unit, which examined a random sampling of the files of more than 4,000 male offenders convicted of indictable offences in the Metropolitan Police district in 1957. Using those figures, the committee worked on the assumption that there were approximately 1 million people in England and Wales with criminal records more than 10 years old and with no conviction since then. Even so, it is perhaps not surprising that many people on both sides of the House and outside were disturbed—and still are disturbed—by the provisions of the Act.
The proposals were laudable enough, but they were seen by the professions and those in certain occupations as a serious and unacceptable risk to the public at large. The Act did two things in an attempt to allay this anxiety. It made it possible for the Home Secretary by order to make appropriate exceptions to the provisions of the Act, and the order is such an instrument. Secondly, the Act was made not to apply to the criminal courts. As with the Act, so with the order. It is impossible to say just how either will work out in practice. There are, undoubtedly, dangers, some of which as yet have not been identified either by experience or by foresight.
It is sensible and right that the professions should be excepted by the order. For example, it would be wrong for a person who wishes to become a doctor, a chartered accountant or a member of the Bar to be allowed to omit any mention of a previous criminal conviction. As has been pointed out by the Minister and the

two previous speakers, it is difficult to see any justification for including among the exceptions in Schedule 1, Part I, the dispensing optician, the pharmaceutical chemist, the nurse and the midwife. It is difficult to see on what grounds these exceptions are made. I know not how strong are the facts, but I suspect that the representations made by professions with a statutory status have been so forceful and cogent that the Government have agreed to their exclusion.
Of course, teachers or any persons who have to work with children must be excluded, but why should hospital cleaners, cooks and porters, under the heading "Offices and employments" in Part II, paragraph 13, be excluded?
What is perhaps more remarkable than the inclusion of these exceptions is the omission of others. Why, for example, are architects, or those who wish to become architects, not excluded by criminal convictions if midwives and dispensing opticians have to make such a declaration? Why should bankers not be excluded?
I well see the difficulties that the Government have had in drawing the dividing line. I hope that the order is not the last of a series of orders which will undoubtedly have to be made at the dictate of experience under the Act. Are we as a House likely to have the opportunity of examining a further order—for example, in a year's time or at the end of some convenient period?
The Act does not apply to criminal courts. It was expressly excluded from doing so. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he told the House on 28th June last year, during the final stages of the Act, that he was going to invite the Lord Chief Justice to make a practice direction for the benefit of the Crown courts and, as I understand it, the Home Office was to produce a circular for the guidance of magistrates' courts. I am delighted and comforted to know that the practice direction is coming out shortly. The Act comes into force next week. Shall we have the practice direction before or at least on 1st July? Can the hon. Gentleman also tell us whether the Home Office circular will be published for the guidance of magistrates at about the same time?
Undoubtedly, the only test we can apply to the value of the Act and the


order is the empirical test of whether they will work in practice. We hope they will, and to that extent we give the order qualified approval, but we ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that, if any defect becomes apparent during the application of the order to the Act, he will come back to the House and allow an early opportunity for amendment.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: This is the only order we have before the House, and, therefore, it is the best order we have and we ought to pass it. When we speak of the rehabilitation of offenders, we tend to think of offenders in every sphere of life bar ours. If dentists and dental hygienists are to be exempted, why not bankers? There is no possible answer to that.
As we would expect, the public sector and the professions are much more influential because they are better organised and in a position to bring more pressure on the Government. Why, for example, should we exempt the professions and yet provide no kind of exemption for people in commerce, where it is very important to know whether perhaps a person has a previous conviction?
The answer is simply that we are embarking on new ground. We took a major step last year in passing legislation on this subject. We can all point to situations or professions which should be on one side of the law rather than the other. We are making a start.
The exemptions should have been much more discriminatory than they are. The Minister gave an example of a man who at age 16 had a conviction for breaking and entering and then applied for the Bar. I think there is a good deal to be said for wiping the slate clean even for the Bar for certain foolish acts committed in youth.

Mr. Grieve: I see the force of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but does it not depend on the nature and gravity of the offence? Some breaking and entering offences involve the use of very great force. Are these matters not best left to the Bar?

Mr. Hooson: The legislation provides for a time limit and allows for an assessment of the nature of the offence. How can one years later judge the

seriousness of an offence when possibly one has only the applicant's word? I should like to have seen much more discriminatory exemptions, but this legislation at least makes a start. I am sure that the Minister is unhappy about the exemptions and perhaps about the way in which it is operated. However, it is necessary to educate the public in this respect.
I have never been happy with the argument that behind a piece of legislation is to be found a "spirit" or a "philosophy". If an Act of Parliament is passed, what is passed is what is intended in that Act, and nothing more. The same applies to an order. It is useless to ask a man who is defending at the Bar to remember the spirit or the philosophy behind a piece of legislation. If he thinks that there is the remotest chance that by putting in a previous conviction or a spent conviction in a case which is evenly balanced it will help his client, he will put it in. It is no use talking to him about the "philosophy" of legislation. He goes on the letter of an Act, not on its spirit.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I deeply regret the fact that that is the attitude of my fellow brethren at the Bar. What they have to learn is whether a jury accepts the philosophy of an Act and reacts accordingly. If they followed the matter up, they would learn that it was just not worth putting in a spent conviction.

Mr. Hooson: As the Minister is a member of my Chambers, I know that when he was at the Bar he would have done what was necessary in the interests of his client. In gauging this interest, I accept that he would try to assess the reaction of the jury to anything he did. It is wrong for Ministers as a matter of principle to talk about the philosophy and spirit behind an Act of Parliament. Once an Act is passed into law, it is only what is enacted that applies, and nothing more. Judges are not interested in the spirit and philosophy of the thing. They look at the letter of what the House enacted, and the Minister knows that well.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: In January of last year when I moved the Second Reading of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill, I did so as


a layman. In tonight's debate I am the only Member present who is not entitled to be called "honourable and learned" despite the fact that I belong to the teaching profession.
I was tremendously impressed by the report mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) which was put out by the committee of Justice and called "Living it down". From reading that report and the many letters I have had afterwards, from people whose lives had been made a misery because of the thought that some minor offence in the past might be made public, it is clear that there was need for Parliament to step in. After the February election Mr. Piers Dixon, the former Member for Truro, took up the Bill and successfully carried it through the House, but both of us would say that that could not have been done without the support and help of my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his predecessor, the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle).
Having seen the order, I am disappointed. I had hoped that we would be given fewer exceptions and that we would have made this a much more serious attempt. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has said, however, it is the only order we have, and we should pass it and see how things go.
It is a long list of exceptions, and I was glad to hear the Minister say that the Government would be having another look at it. I think that Parliament and the Government will need to look constantly at this brave effort to give people justice, which to me is more important than the law. Many of those who have tried to rehabilitate themselves and to show that they are endeavouring to do right by the people they may have wronged have entered public service, and they have entered office in the menial tasks which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned. They have worked in hospitals and elsewhere and in social work, and now they are included in the list of exceptions.
I hope that the Government will look seriously at the order again and bring in another one. I understand that the

Home Office is to publish a guide, not only to magistrates but to the rest of us, to explain how the Act and the order will work, and I hope that the Minister of State when he replies will be able to tell us something about this and when it will be published. We are all feeling our way in putting this into practice, but I am sure that the feeling of Parliament and people is that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act should apply to as many people as possible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): There is roughly half an hour left for the debate, and it should be possible to call the four hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak if they are sympathetic to each other.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I find myself in substantial agreement with the words of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) in that I think it is perfectly true to say that the order shows that the Government have had second thoughts about the scope of the Act. To see the reason for that one has only to look at the way in which the Act was originally brought before this House as a Bill.
It is perfectly true to say, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) has just said, that he introduced the Bill at one stage and that Mr. Piers Dixon introduced the one which eventually led to the Act, but when Mr. Piers Dixon's Bill came before the Standing Committee it had, like the Bill of the hon. Member for Gorton, received a great deal of informed criticism from experienced people and from those who would have to apply it if it became law.
However, when the Bill reached Standing Committee, albeit as a Private Member's Bill, it was taken over by the Government. Every clause was replaced by wholly different wording introduced as amendments by the Government—indeed, by the Minister of State himself—and as a result very little informed criticism went into the wording of the Act as we now have it before us. It is due to come into force on 1st July, and the Government, faced by the real practical objections to applying the Act as it is, have been forced to make many sweeping exemptions.
I say, as one who had great misgivings about the original Bill and the Act, that it would have been preferable if the Government had repealed the Act. But I suppose that the next best is to have sweeping exemptions. However, they make the legislation a bit of a nonsense, because what is left is very small in relation to the original intention. The original wording of the Act is obscure. It is a legal hotch-potch, and the effect of these many exemptions will be to make the application of the Act even more obscure and uncertain. There will be an even great burden on those who will have to apply it.
I am more concerned, however, about omissions from the list of exemptions. Some reference has been made to them already. One of the most important is that of the profession of architects. Like other institutions, the Royal Institute of British Architects applied for exemption last year. It was refused. The letter from the Home Office making the refusal said that
the medical profession, whose members have unsupervised access to patients in vulnerable situations and to dangerous drugs; and…the legal professions, who have a special duty to fulfil the expectation of the public that the professional conduct and character of those responsible for administering the processes of justice should be subject to exceptionally demanding scrutiny and control
were examples which were worthy of exemption under the Act.
If that is so, why should not the exemptions be restricted to the medical and legal professions? In fact accountants, veterinary surgeons, insurance officials and officials of finance houses are all included, yet there is public concern about the placing of building contracts involving public money and public works. A high standard of integrity is required from all architects. In 1973 no less than £2,000 million worth of building work passed under architects' certificates. Almost all of it was for architect-designed work where architects had advised on the tenders.
So far as I know, this is the only profession with regulatory disciplinary powers which is not given exemption. The Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom has in its time struck off many people for long periods—far longer than the 10 years which is the

appropriate limit under the Act. That surely is one case where there was an omission which should be included in preference to some of those which the Minister quoted.
There are one or two others. There are omissions under Part II of Schedule 1, for example. Reference is made to cadet organisations and training organisations such as the Army Cadets and so on. There are also the St. John Ambulance Brigade, which has a junior branch, and the Red Cross, which apparently are not included. Then again, for the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions there is an exemption. But if the staff of the DPP merit exemption, why not the staff of every prosecuting authority? Why not the staff of the Solicitor to the Metropolitan Police here in London, which is perhaps a much greater prosecuting authority in terms of work and sometimes in terms of the severity of the charges with which its staff deal? They are entitled to be considered on a par with the staff of the DPP. The same applies to the staff in many county prosecuting authorities. Why should they not be exempted if the DPP and the appropriate Scottish institutions are exempted?
Although we are considering this order and can see its obvious defects, there are a number of detailed criticisms with regard to omissions. I hope that these matters will be borne in mind by the Government if they intend to bring forward further amending orders.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I begin by declaring what may be an interest. I occasionally sit on the panel of legal assessors of the General Medical Council disciplinary committee. I do not know whether that is an interest, but, if so, I declare it.
I hope that I shall not be thought to be against the principle of the order when I say that it contains or is blemished by two serious omissions. Its provisions will result in the Act seriously impeding the functions of disciplinary committees concerned with the professions, particularly the medical profession.
It does not need to be stated by anybody with experience of the profession that disciplinary committees acting on behalf of doctors need to know the whole history of doctors who come before them


charged with offences connected with alcohol or drugs. Obviously first offences will not, save in exceptional cases, be treated as meriting dismissal from the profession. On the other hand, if a doctor has been convicted on more than one occasion for the same kind of offence, it may be a very different type of case. I think that that is accepted by the Government. Indeed, on Report the Minister of State indicated as much, and it is implicit in the logic of the order. But a relevant conviction of this type will become spent after one year if, as often happens, it is made the subject of a conditional discharge, and if the doctor has been fined it will become spent after five years.
The GMC takes the view—it is only common sense—that it is not safe in the public interest that a five-year period of good conduct may exempt a doctor from having a conviction of this character disclosed to a disciplinary committee in these circumstances. The GMC will need to ask for information about this kind of thing and to rely on that information being given to it when it does.
The order goes some way in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. The relevant articles of the order, 3(a) and 4(a), relate to the medical profession, which comes at the top of the list of professions in Part I of Schedule 1.
Section 4(2) of the Act in its general effect stops any question of this kind having to be answered.
otherwise than in proceedings before a judicial authority".
A disciplinary committee is defined as a judicial authority. So far so good. But Article 3(a) of the order provides that Section 4(2) of the Act shall not apply in relation to
any question asked by or on behalf of any person, in the course of the duties of his office or employment in order to assess the suitability
(i) of the person to whom the question relates for admission"—
that is the key word—
to any of the professions".
I should like to make two short points. First, inquiries often have to be made before proceedings are started before the disciplinary committee of the GMC. The order gives an exemption in the case of proceedings before a disciplinary com-

mittee, but inquiries often have to be made before proceedings are started. Section 4(2) of the Act does not exempt these from the provisions of the legislation.
The second point is that Article 3(a) of the order only exempts questions which are asked in order to assess the suitability of a person for admission to the profession. The Minister will know that there are many cases where questions of this kind have to be asked by a professional disciplinary body with a view to possible dismissal or exclusion from a profession, before any proceedings are set on foot. The order deals only with admission. That, on its own logic, is a bad omission in the order. The Act at present prevents this and the order leaves the position untouched. I hope that the Minister will look into that matter. It is a question not of going behind the principle of the legislation but of applying consistently the logic of the order as at present drafted.
Article 4 does relate to
the dismissal or exclusion of any person from any profession".
It appears that Section 4(3)(b) does not apply to such a case. That is well and good. But Section 4(3)(a) is left untouched. I shall not read the whole of it, because we are pressed for time. The guts of subsection 3(a) is that any obligation that is imposed on anybody by any rule of law or by the provisions of any agreement or arrangement to disclose information shall not extend to disclosing spent convictions. But there are many cases where arrangements have been made by the Department concerning magistrates' clerks, whereby particulars of conviction are supplied to disciplinary committees on request. As the order stands, the Act bites on that kind of arrangement. It ought not to do so, because it is in the public interest that disciplinary committees should be able in proper cases to obtain this type of information.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman considered Article 5 of the order which exempts Section 4(1), which deals with judicial proceedings, which would include the GMC? Schedule 3, paragraph 1, refers to:
Proceedings in respect of a person's admission to, or disciplinary proceedings against


a member of, any profession specified in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Order.
Part I includes the medical profession.

Mr. Mayhew: Has the Minister made this clear to the GMC, which has had correspondence with him? I do not think that he has, because the GMC has expressed its grave concern about this matter. I do not think that it has understood from his reply, or from his Department, that the council's point in this regard has been accepted. If the Minister takes the view that Article 5, or any other article of the order, meets the point raised with him by the council, the council will be very relieved. But my points relate to Section 4(2) and (3) and not to Section 4(1).
If the Minister is prepared to give an assurance that these points are covered and that matters relating to admission, exclusion from, and dismissal, and also the information required, are exempt under the terms of the order, the council will be much relieved.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: I rise to make a very brief intervention. By a happy coincidence I had the pleasure earlier this evening of meeting Dr. Piers Dixon, the man to whom the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) paid tribute as pilot of the Bill.
Several hon. Members have referred to the verbal contortions in which we find ourselves. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) referred to the extensive redrafting that occurred in this place—redrafting which lost a great deal of the felicity of the original drafting and particularly its simplicity. This is part of the trouble in which we find ourselves this evening. It is pleasant to see that so many of the Members who took part in the Committee proceedings are present tonight.
My main point—I hope that the Minister will emphasise what I am saying—is that although there are many more exemptions than those who supported the measure when it passed through the House would wish to see, those exemptions provide only that spent conviction shall he disclosed; it is not incumbent upon bodies not to employ the people concerned or to disbar them by one means or another. Therefore, to follow

the words of the hon. Member for Gorton, it is largely a matter of public education and it is necessary to give a strong lead.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us that this lead is to be given by his Department, in terms of the practices which may be followed when such matters are decided. I appreciate the Minister's difficulties about the need to disclose such convictions, but I hope that in circulars and other directions that are issued he will make forcibly the point that it is not necessary, on those grounds, to disbar people. If he does not do so, we shall have to pay a great deal more attention than has been possible in the brief time this evening to the specific offences which will disqualify people.
This is a field which would lead to a much longer order than the one before us, but that is the only alternative unless a clear lead is given by the Minister.
I pay tribute to the spirit and enthusiasm with which the Minister assisted in the passage of the Act and I recognise the reluctance with which he has presented such an extensive order this evening.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Roger Sims: I assure the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) that he is not the only unlearned Member taking an interest in the order. As one who was involved in the Committee stage of the Act, and who voiced a number of reservations in the course of those proceedings. I am happy to welcome the order in its present form. I am glad that it is relatively broad, although I am as perplexed as are other hon. Members by certain inclusions and exclusions.
In view of your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to deal at length with the exclusion from the exempt list of architects, but if there are any logical criteria to be applied to the list before us, and if we are dealing particularly with people who are concerned with the safety and well-being of the public—and if, today, there is concern for the quality of certain public and private architectural works; I could mention several cases in which architects have been involved—I would have thought that the architectural profession was one profession that was very concerned with the safety and well-being of


the public. I hope that before too long the Minister will consult—I suspect that he may not have done so—his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ascertain his views on this matter, and perhaps bring forward a further order to cover the architectural profession.
The only other matter on which I should value enlightenment is paragraph 14 of Schedule 1, which refers to
Any employment by a youth club, local authority
and so on. What is meant here by "employment"? I spoke several times in Committee about work dealing with children, and I am concerned to know whether voluntary organisations are covered. For example, in the Scouts and the Boys' Brigade one might say that the people involved are not necessarily employed by those organisations although they will be interviewed for the job and so on. I shall be glad to know whether that situation is covered by paragraph 14 or by some other provision of the order.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The Minister regards it as necessary to exclude persons who are in a position of trust vis-à-vis the community, or, at least, he wishes to do so in so far as that is practicable. It is one of the difficulties of legislation of this sort that these things are difficult to define. However, given the Minister's view of the importance of so doing, I cannot understand why there is no specific exemption in relation to councillors and Members of Parliament. Perhaps Members of Parliament are of less importance here since, although we think that we have a great deal of power and responsibility, it is largely illusory, especially when Governments have substantial majorities. Councillors, on the other hand, exercise considerable power, notably over various aspects of planning and development, and it seems to me all the more important that there should be freedom to disclose whether a councillor has been involved in the past in acts which may be discreditable to the position of trust which he holds.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I cannot anticipate the Minister's reply, but I have had something to do with these matters. Does not my hon. Friend agree

that one of the objects of the Act was that if a person who had committed some small offence at any early stage in his life should 25 years later want to stand for the local council, he ought not by that alone to run the risk of its being dug up in the local paper that he was convicted and fined for some minor offence of a totally different nature when he was 18 or 19? With respect, if my hon. Friend says that the exemption should be as wide as that, he is going against the whole spirit and principle of the Act.

Mr. Lawrence: If it is a minor offence of a totally different nature, no one would spend his time and energy digging it up. The significance of it is that it should be brought to the attention of the public, who should be protected against elected representatives who have committed offences which have relevance to decisions which they take in the positions of power and influence which they hold. Therefore, although I am not against the spirit of the Act, I can only regard this as an example of legislation which, however first-class in theory it might be, shows in its practical application consequences which make nonsense of the whole thing.
However, I am heartened by the knowledge that the Minister has fairly and constructively said that if in course of time it is found that the situation has changed and it throws up new categories of persons in respect of whom there should be exemption, the matter will have his consideration and that of the Government. There is thereby some protection, although I should like to have his explanation now regarding councillors in particular and also, perhaps, Members of Parliament.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: When I finally approved the draft of the order the concern in my mind was that I might have raised a hornets' nest as regards those who have applied for exemption and have been refused. Apart from the application from the architects, none of them has chosen to brief Members of Parliament to voice concern. It is an interesting fact that almost everyone, with the exception of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), has criticised me for allowing the exemptions to be so wide. That goes to show how wrong we can be in our judgment about public


opinion in politics. All I can say is that a substantial number of people who applied for exemption were refused—in fact, a number far in excess of those who have had their applications granted.
When the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) says that what has obviously happened is that the public sector and the professions—I think this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann)—have obviously gained because they are well organised to influence the Government, I can tell him that there are many sore heads around Whitehall as a result of the applications which were vetoed by the Home Office in the course of the discussions that took place on exemptions. That applies not least to the example I mentioned earlier—namely, the Ministry of Defence, which wanted to exempt all members of the Armed Forces. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise applied for exemption. Superficially there might have been a good case for exemption, but none was made.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, who made certain criticisms, that the Department of the Environment wanted us to exempt driving examiners, for example, on the basis that they are sometimes in a position to make advances towards young ladies with whom they are concerned. A whole host of people have applied for exemptions and have been refused. When people tell me that the exemptions are so wide that we have reversed what we did in the Act, all I can say is that they have not had the opportunity that I have had of listening to those who in the past have been using past convictions against people who apply for entry into their employment or profession and who will now be refused the right to use spent convictions. I think that the effect of the Act will be considerable in allowing people to gain access to employment where hitherto they have been refused.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Will the Minister deal with the Architects' Registration Council? It is clear that the council is the only statutory body whose profession has not been listed in the order.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. and learned Gentleman made that point in his speech

and I shall deal with it. In fact, he is wrong. The chartered surveyors also applied and were refused. The answer is that we considered the architects' point to be the same as the crime prevention applications from the banks, for example. We refused all applications based merely on crime prevention. It is true that an architect may be in a position to commit an offence. If he is so inclined from previous experience, there may be a greater danger. Equally, there may be a greater danger as regards a bank official who has previously been convicted. The same kind of argument can be used in relation to almost everybody and in relation to almost any employment.
Where we have drawn the line is that those occupations which were concerned with the administration of justice and, with the execution of the law have been exempted. Initially we intended not to exempt accountants. The only reason why they were subsequently exempted was that I was persuaded that they have a rôle to play in the administration of the law in the sense that their certificates are often the authority that is accepted under statute and under the administration of the law for certain kinds of auditing and vetting of other people's activities. It was on that basis alone that I decided to allow the accountants to be exempted.
We did not take the view that architects and surveyors should be included, although we recognised that they were in a position sometimes to influence contracts, and concern about that has been expressed. I make the point which I made in opening the debate that drawing the line in relation to these exemptions has been extremely difficult. I accept that there was a case for drawing it rather more tightly. What we have done is to proceed as far as we thought right at the moment, recognising that with experience it may be possible to draw the line more tightly.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Why has it not proved practicable to distinguish between offences involving dishonesty and those involving drugs, or sexual offences, and particular classes of occupation that may be at risk? I regard that as crucial. I know that the Greater London Council put to the Minister proposals that drew that kind of distinction.

Mr. Lyon: Preparation of the Act and the exemptions has been extremely complex because of the necessity to draw lines at all kinds of stages in circumstances that it was difficult at the time to foresee. One of the reasons why the Act is so complex is that it has been difficult to make these judgments in advance. It may be possible in future to simplify the Act as well as the order. However, if to that we had added the burden of saying that the exemptions would apply only to specified convictions and specified occupations, the difficulty would have been even greater.
This point was brought home to me forcefully when I looked through the draft of the leaflet of guidance, which is now available and which we hope it will be possible to issue to the public on 1st July. It is extremely difficult to put it into simple language because of the number of exemptions and because of the difficulty of distinguishing between different parts of the Act for different purposes.
It was therefore partly for simplicity and partly because of the administrative difficulty that I decided that it was better to allow exemptions for all convictions, of whatever kind, even though I accept that for certain occupations it is necessary to exempt only certain kinds of convictions. We shall see how we get on and I certainly undertake to monitor the effect of the Act and to try to cut down the exemptions if that is possible.
I do not have time now to deal with them in detail, but I think that the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) were a misunderstanding of the order. I can put it best by saying baldly that the first sentence of the note that was passed to me after the hon. and learned Member's speech said "the GMC are all wrong". I shall try to explain more fully why we think that. All its anxieties are covered. It will be able not only to consider spent convictions but to have access to spent convictions when that is required for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) wanted us to include councillors. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that we were all in

favour of the Act except when it hit our own occupations. The authorities of the House of Commons suggested that we ought to make exemptions for servants of the House. We refused that too, and so we refused to allow ourselves the privilege. Somewhat similar considerations apply to councillors.
The crucial argument is the one put by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). If we allowed exceptions to go so wide that they covered all kinds of professions, there would be no point in having enacted the original legislation. I utterly reject the suggestion that we have undermined the spirit of the Act by making the exceptions. There are a number of cases where we may have gone too wide, but the overall effect of the measure will be beneficial.
I certainly would not accept that councillors or anyone entering into public life ought to have this kind of spent conviction thrown up against them. If in a particular case it became a matter of public concern and interest that a man had a spent conviction, Section 8 allows a newspaper or anyone else to disclose that in free public debate as long as it is done without malice. If it is done with malice, clearly it would be actionable in defamation. Subject to that, it could be raised in public discussion if the matter came to the notice of someone who thought it was in the public interest to ventilate it.
The purpose of this measure is to allow people to live down their past. That will mean that people who have previously been convicted will now be able to keep that secret and go into occupations and professions which have hitherto been barred to them. That is right. It is what Parliament intended. I entirely subscribe to the sentiments expressed from both sides praising those who first put forward the suggestion, from Lord Gardiner and the Justice committee to the various Members of this House who have supported the idea in Private Members' Bills. Now it is to be placed on the statute book. I hope that experience of its operation will show that our judgment was right.

Mr. Sims: Will the hon. Member cover the point about youth workers and voluntary organisations?

Mr. Lyon: I think that the best thing for me to do is to write to the hon. Member.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th December relating to nomination of Members of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Coleman.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

HOSPITAL FACILITIES (WEST MIDLANDS)

11.53 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: It has taken me 11 weeks to get this Adjournment debate. With any other subject I would probably have given up in despair long ago. It is absolutely vital, however, that the attention of the Minister should be drawn to the appalling plight of accident, eye and cancer patients in the West Midlands and to the utterly disgraceful conditions under which medical staff dealing with these patients have to work.
Many years ago plans were laid for the replacement of the Birmingham Accident Hospital and the Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital on the Queen Elizabeth Hospital site and for the extension and improvement of the radiotherapy unit already there. There was to be a great medical centre at the Queen Elizabeth, incorporating eye, accident, geriatric, psychiatric and children's hospitals All were to be on one site. Completion date was to be 1975 or 1977 at the latest. That was in the 1950s.
Today that plan is in ruins. Governments of both political colours have imposed delays, but the present Government have finally wielded the axe. It is in the belief that they have done so without appreciating what this means to the people of my area that I have sought this debate.
The Birmingham Accident Hospital in Bath Row is 130 years old. It had an international reputation for such things as advances in burn treatment, wound infection and the prevention of thrombosis. But the fabric of the building is so old that it is literally crumbling. It sounds incredible, but accident victims who are rushed to the operating theatre run the risk of bits of ceiling falling into their open wounds.
One senior surgeon there, Mr. H. Proctor, says:
The fabric of the building is worn and inadequate; the operating theatre ceiling has crumbled and fallen, providing not only a physical threat but also one of wound infection. The latter is also a risk from the many dust traps of such an old building, despite diligent efforts by our cleaners.
Another surgeon, Mr. Michael Porter, has spoken of the
overcrowded and cramped conditions and a higgledy-piggledy electrical system".
The latter may not sound too serious, but a 51-year-old man died recently because an ancillary nurse pressed the wrong switch in the intensive care unit. The switches are scattered in a Heath Robinson way all over the wall, having grown in size and number at various times, with no overall plan for efficiency.
Even if the Government had not halted the plan to have a new accident hospital, the five or ten years needed to build it would be too long. But with no new hospital in sight at all, the situation for patients and staff is truly hopeless in every sense of the word. It is so bad that the hospital has said publicly that it can no longer guarantee the safety of its patients.
The Birmingham Eye Hospital was also once internationally renowned but it has been regarded as in urgent need of replacement for nearly 40 years. Young doctors, fresh from medical school, with the ink hardly dry on their degree certificates, went to the eye hospital because it was well known to be such a fine hospital and because it was


shortly to be replaced by a new building. Today those same doctors face retirement with the grand plans for a new hospital as far away as when their careers began.
In 1964 the hospital closed for six months after six people had each lost the sight of an eye due to an infection. An independent report was commissioned which described the conditions in the casualty department as "deplorable". It said that they were 70 per cent. deficient by the standards set out as minimal by the Department of Health. It said that the situation in the main theatre was "almost unbelievable" and that it was unsafe to use. The report found that every requirement for a reservoir of the bacteria which caused blindness existed in the sterilising room. The hospital has no incinerator to burn infected rubbish, and the report noted this too.
That report was suppressed because its publication would cause concern to the patients. A new hospital was again promised and the old was opened again on that understanding and because it was desperately needed in the area. I beg the Minister to resurrect that report, which must be filed somewhere in his Department.
Today the situation has not changed. Improvements which could have been made have not been carried out because everyone thought that a new hospital was imminent. A senior eye surgeon in Birmingham, Mr. Roper-Hall, warns that many West Midlanders will go blind because of their faith in the NHS. He says, in effect, that the patients are too patient. His actual words are:
They have a touching faith in the ability of the Eye Hospital. But many will lose their sight while waiting for years on the waiting list—sight which could be preserved if we could reach them to prevent complications setting in. Some who will become blind, inevitably, are children.
About 1,700 people are on the official waiting list, but because they know that the hospital can cope only with serious emergencies family doctors in Birmingham have almost stopped referring non-urgent cases to the list.
No one knows how many people are in need of treatment, but more than 400 have been waiting for well over a year, some of them up to three years, and their sight could well have gone beyond re-

covery. Many people on the list have died while waiting.
On 29th April I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services
what steps she intends taking to improve eye hospital care facilities in the West Midlands.
The answer I received reduced staff at the hospital to despair. It was that
Thirty-two additional ophthalmic beds will be provided when phase I of Selly Oak Hospital, now under construction, is completed, and work is planned to start this year on new operating theatres at the Wolverhampton Eye Infirmary."—[Official Report, 29th April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 80.]
The eye hospital must, if it is to be as efficient as it has been in the past, continue as an integrated unit. Wolverhampton is too far away to serve the Birmingham area in the way that the planned hospital would have done.
All sorts of research has been going on in the incredibly difficult conditions at the eye hospital. The research includes such matters as ultrasonic techniques, the use of laser beams and electronic techniques. The research staff say that all of this will have to be abandoned if the hospital is fragmented as suggested.
I quote Mr. S. J. Crews, Director of Research at the Hospital:
It would be a disaster to have to abandon research because of the Eye Hospital being split into five or six separate, scattered hospital departments.
He added that such a split would utterly destroy the morale of the research staff.
Finally, this horror story must deal with conditions at the radiotherapy department of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Mr. William Bond, director of the department, sent me a letter about conditions in his department. I visited it and I could hardly believe what I saw and heard. The Queen Elizabeth is one of Britain's finest hospitals and is famous throughout the land. I was prepared for some of the troubles which were outlined in Mr. Bond's letter, but I was appalled by what I saw.
The corridors have scaling walls and ceilings. May of them are absolutely filthy and some of them are overrun with rats—rats in one of the finest hospitals in Britain‡ Water drips through the roof whenever it rains on to a high voltage electrical circuit and this has to be dried out with a hand hair-drier. Skilled technicians have to dash in and out of the


isotope department because radiation there is well above the acceptable level. I do not scruple to tell the House that conditions at this department are a national scandal. No maintenance has been done because of the plans to extend the department. Now, those plans have been scrapped.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Is my hon. Friend aware that similar situations prevail in parts of the hospital at Solihull which was designed to cater for a population of 200,000 and most important parts of which are housed in workhouse buildings dating from 1840? Here again, first-aid work has been suspended because there is a plan for the future, but the plan is postponed from year to year.

Mrs. Knight: I have no doubt that the Minister will take on board the comments made by my hon. and learned Friend. If this debate could last longer, there is no question but that we could all fill it with similar pieces of information about our constituencies. It concerns me that in this regard the Minister has not been well informed.

Mr. Hal Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have recently had correspondence with the Minister which makes it clear that he does not understand the position on the site? Will she confirm that the facts are as she has stated and are not those which the Minister has intimated in correspondence? Is she further aware that consultant staff have already begun leaving these hospitals? I refer particularly to a distinguished consultant in the radiotherapy department. I support my hon. Friend's remarks about the length of the waiting list for the eye hospital and conditions at the accident hospital which have given great concern, especially in the absence of any definite plan for a new hospital at Bromsgrove and Redditch.

Mrs. Knight: I confirm that all the facts which I give to the House are absolutely correct. I have gone to great lengths to be extremely careful in what I say, and I assure the House that I am not overstressing the case. It is true that the Minister has not been well informed, because according to another piece of correspondence he believes that phase 1 will ease the situation. I am not re-

ferring to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), whom I welcome to his new position on the Government Front Bench. He will know the Minister to whom I refer.
Far from phase 1 easing the situation, the difficulties will be increased, because there is no direct access to the building from the main hospital, and sick patients will need to make an ambulance journey to receive treatment, even when they are in-patients. There are no plans to continue using the present therapy unit—where the rats are. One machine has been condemned by the Department of Health and Social Security, and the other is in need of urgent overhaul, but the plans require it to be dismantled and stored until it is needed for phase 2. The phase 1 development merely replaces the present equipment, admittedly in better surroundings, but there will be no increase in the services offered to patients.
The Minister must understand that it proper treatment for cancer is to be given in the Birmingham area it is vital that the decision to stop building and equipping a radiotherapy unit must be overruled. I understand that radiotherapy will actually cure advanced cancer of the cervix, laryngeal cancer, Hodgkins disease, testicular cancer, cancer of the bladder, cancer of the tongue and mouth and cancer of the tonsils and skin. All these diseases can be cured. Radiotherapy will greatly relieve the suffering caused by many other types of cancer.
One X-ray machine for such treatment came over from America under lend-lease in 1942 for the treatment of gas gangrene, and it is still in daily use. The other was pieced together from bits of old and broken-down machines. I have a sheaf of immensely pathetic letters from cancer patients and relatives of cancer patients who tell me of times when, the ambulance having collected the patients from home and taken them to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for treatment, they have to be sent home again untreated because the machine had broken down.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising these matters, and I support her by confirming the truth of the description she has given of the frustration which is felt in Birmingham and district about the situation affecting the


eye hospital, the accident hospital and other important radiotherapy and health services to which she and my hon. Friends have referred. This frustration is intensified by vague news of further Government cuts.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is desperately important that we should be told the precise financial position of the West Midlands Regional Health Authority at the earliest possible moment, because further intolerable Government delay is making even more difficult the position of the dedicated staff who are striving to do their best for Birmingham patients in extremely worrying circumstances?

Mrs. Knight: Having seen the radiotherapy department at the Queen Elizabeth, I am amazed that the staff remain there. No tribute to them is too high. Goodness knows, they would be welcome in other areas, in other hospitals and, indeed, in other countries.
I have with me a pathetic petition from 294 people. It is headed
Petition for a new megawatt voltage machine to help cure cancer".
The petition was obtained quickly and sent to me when it was known that this debate was coming up. The 274 people who signed it are desperately anxious either about relatives who suffer from the disease or about their own future. I hope that the Minister will later accept the petition.
Radiotherapy for at least half the people in the West Midlands is based on the Queen Elizabeth department. It has to deal with one-tenth of all cancer patients in the country with only a fraction of the equipment provided elsewhere. Each consultant at the Queen Elizabeth has to deal with 600 patients a year, whereas elsewhere the patient—consultant ratio is 300 to one. The consultants have to do that without adequate junior support, because whereas most of the country has a trainee ratio of 60 per cent, of the consultants, the West Midlands has a ratio of only 14 per cent.
For a population of 5·5 million the Department recommends 20 consultants. Birmingham is far under that figure and more and more consultants are needed. Indeed, the loss of skilled medical men in the area is gravely worrying to us all.

As Mr. Bond says, in qualified staff and equipment, in trainees and sympathy, we are hopelessly deficient.
When will the Department recognise what a plight the Midlands are in? It is true, and must be noted by the Minister, that West Midlanders are more likely to die of cancer, treated or untreated, than any other group in the British Isles.
Of course I know that money is short, but there are dozens of other areas where it is being spent on less important matters. In the name of the people of my area, I ask the Minister to give top priority to investigating the situation. If he does that, I am confident that the heartless and hopeless delay of these vital plans will be stopped.

12.11 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Meacher): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) on securing her Adjournment debate after the long delay to which she referred, and on her perseverance and the forceful and careful way in which she described the present very serious deficiencies in the medical services in the West Midlands.
I appreciate that the indignation which the hon. Lady has expressed, and rightly so, about the inadequate facilities is shared in many other parts of the West Midlands. I will comment on a number of the specific points she made but will first explain the background to the present situation in Birmingham and the process by which the deficiencies and inadequacies she has detailed will be put right.
Let me say straight away that I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady has said. There is no doubt that in Birmingham and in the West Midlands region as a whole—and, of course, I mean the West Midlands health region of 5 million people, not the West Midlands metropolitan county of 2·8 million people—there are too many old, unsatisfactory hospitals, and too many cases of inadequate primary care facilities. Indeed, this is true right across the country. There is no doubt that a great deal of money needs to be spent to remedy these deficiencies, and the Government intend to provide the necessary funds as quickly as the country's overall economic position allows.
I know that many people in Birmingham were deeply disappointed—perhaps that is too mild a word—that the major development of the Queen Elizabeth site was not included in the 1975–76 hospital building programme. The truth of the matter is that, after the 1973 cuts forced on the Government of the day and in the excessive economic difficulties thereafter, it was just not possible to include such a large scheme. The estimated total cost of the scheme last year was £20 million.
The Birmingham Area Health Authority (Teaching) has been quick to seize the implications of the present capital situation, however, and is considering alternative strategies for the provision of those elements of the Queen Elizabeth development that are most urgently needed, particularly expansion of the radiotherapy facilities and the reprovision of the eye hospital and accident hospital.
It may be possible to undertake some of these schemes very quickly without too much new expenditure—for example, by resiting some of the units which are now in very unsatisfactory accommodation which the hon. Lady was entirely right to emphasise—in existing, more satisfactory buildings. Others will undoubtedly need considerable capital expenditure, however, and this is where we face major problems.
In rightly drawing attention to the appalling condition of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, the hon. Lady indicated that she had visited the radiotherapy department quite recently. The Department's medical officer responsible for the West Midlands also visited there the week before last, and I have seen his report. I hope that one of the major problems involving existing equipment breaking down will be remedied very shortly when the new linear accelerator and cobalt machine come into use in the new building. I fully realise, however, that this only replaces existing accommodation and does not provide the necessary increase in facilities. The West Midlands Regional Health Authority will obviously be considering the relative priority of this increased provision in relation to the other needs of the region.
I have seen reports in the Birmingham Press, and I have heard the hon. Lady tonight describe, the deplorable state of

the existing building, particularly the problem of rat infestation. I do not want to be unduly critical of the health authorities, because they had reason to expect that the existing accommodation would quickly go out of use as the new scheme proceeded. I am bound to say, however, that I regard some of the problems reported—the leaking roof, paint flaking from the walls and particularly the problem of rat infestation—as being a failure of local management. Even if one expects to replace a building within a matter of months, there is no justification for not making a serious and effective assault on a problem such as rat infestation. I know that the regional health authority is considering urgently how the present problems can be remedied. We in the Department have offered the services of our adviser on domestic services, who has a special knowledge of means of dealing with rat infestations, if the regional or area authorities feel that they need our help.
I know that some concern has been expressed about the possible danger to people working in the radiotherapy department from some of the isotopes used. I am advised that in fact there is no danger provided very stringent safety precautions are observed. In such an old and unsatisfactory building, these precautions have necessarily to be more stringent than those that would be necessary in new accommodation, but provided they are observed I assure the hon. Lady that there should be no danger.

Mrs. Knight: Could the Minister press his experts about this? I understand that the medical technicians have to rush in and out again because the area in which the isotopes are kept is too small. I am sure the Minister is right to say that safety precautions are followed, and the Department lays down stringent rules, but I understand that those rules are not met in the present siting of the department where the isotopes are situated.

Mr. Meacher: I accept what the hon. Lady says. I was saying that the facilities are recognised to be cramped and that the procedures require to be tighter and more strenuous than otherwise would be necessary. I am advised that it is possible to carry them out. I assure the hen. Lady that I shall have that matter further investigated.
We have to face the fact that it will inevitably be many years before all the present deficiencies in the National Health Service, including those in the West Midlands and more particularly in Birmingham, will be put right. It is not only the global resources that must be borne in mind, but allocations within regions.
The hon. Lady asked about procedures for the health capital programme in future years. I should comment first about the global level of resources. Ever since December 1973, when the then Government found themselves forced to impose severe cuts on health service expenditure, successive Governments have had to plan on lower levels of future expenditure than they would have wished because of our general economic situation. I am afraid that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Budget day, the outlook for the health capital programme for future years is by no means favourable.
1 can only say that as a Government we mean to spend more on the health services as soon as the economic situation allows. As to whether the West Midlands gets a fair allocation of the resources available for the country as a whole, it is very difficult indeed to devise a system of allocation which can be proved to be objectively fair. We are not satisfied that the present system of allocating capital to regions is satisfactory, but since taking office we have given urgent priority to restructuring the criteria for allocating resources, and we have set up a working party precisely for this purpose, to make them more responsive to the needs of different parts of the country, particularly areas of health deprivation.
With a view to this my Department is giving urgent study to ways of objectively measuring existing local variations in the distribution of resources. I would expect that it will be quite some time before we are able substantially to improve the present system, and obviously I cannot also predict whether, if a more objective means is found, it will necessarily prove that the West Midlands has had more or less than its fair

share of resources over the last few years. But I have certainly noted the very powerful comments made tonight on that score.
As part of our proposed National Health Service planning system I should also add that we have already asked the 14 regional health authorities to begin the preparation of outline regional strategies for the next decade. This involves an appraisal of existing resources, an analysis of needs and the preparation of a strategy to meet these needs in the region over the years. This review will apply both to the obvious needs for new capital expenditure on new hospitals, and for what are in many ways the more important elements of the health serivces—good primary care facilities.
The aim is thus for a new systematic identification of deficiencies to be made up or new standards of provisions to be achieved, and the meeting of these deficiencies and the achievements of these new standards just as quickly as resources allow.
The importance of all of this for the present Birmingham situation, and indeed the situation in all other parts of the region, is that, beginning with the Green Paper and later through the National Health Service planning system, the regional health authority will be systematically reviewing needs and determining priorities for meeting them. In other words, the regional health authority will be able to consider the needs of, say, Dudley or Walsall, which are also grossly deprived, against the need to reprovide Birmingham Accident Hospital, and will prepare, as it were, a priority list of projects. Thus the very real need to expand the radiotherapy facilities in central Birmingham—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Twelve o'clock.